ExxonMobil RICO case a slam dunk?
- Thread starter woodgeek
- Start date
-
Active since 1995, Hearth.com is THE place on the internet for free information and advice about wood stoves, pellet stoves and other energy saving equipment.
We strive to provide opinions, articles, discussions and history related to Hearth Products and in a more general sense, energy issues.
We promote the EFFICIENT, RESPONSIBLE, CLEAN and SAFE use of all fuels, whether renewable or fossil. -
Super Cedar firestarters 30% discount Use code Hearth2024 Click here
- Status
NY AG says its the SECs job to police carbon bubble disclosures....
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/24/b...x-enforcement-of-climate-risk-disclosure.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/24/b...x-enforcement-of-climate-risk-disclosure.html
Last edited:
....and the SEC has ruled:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-exxon-mobil-shareholders-exclusive-idUSKCN0WP2TG
basically, they say that previous reports by XOM to shareholders re climate change risks (to the XOM business model) were not adequate.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-exxon-mobil-shareholders-exclusive-idUSKCN0WP2TG
basically, they say that previous reports by XOM to shareholders re climate change risks (to the XOM business model) were not adequate.
haven't really been following this very closely,but this looked interesting. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/05...kla-in-foia-lawsuit-emails-to-be-made-public/
Doesn't seem too surprising.
1) A couple dozen interested, informed taxpayers get together to write a public, signed letter to their government, which they feel is in the public interest.
2) A member of congress gets his pet think tank to subpoena the letter writers' employer with a FOIA claim (but with the implied threat of a congressional subpoena later if they don't comply) for the letter writers' email to each other.
3) Threatened by the think tank (and their backing congressperson), the employers cave, the emails are posted in a right-wing blog, and the emails consist of a few nerds circulating emails about....what should be in the letter and who should be brought in to sign it. Duh.
4) Said congressman uses his 'oversight authority' to look into the lead letter writers' (publicly available) salary and govt grant funding information....his and his family's financial records for the last two decades are forwarded to another right-wing blog, and his perpetual harassment is off to the races.
Who is the witch, and who is the witchhunter?
I look forward to the day that every little old lady that writes a letter to the newspaper receives a subpeona from the US congress the next day for all her personal communications from the previous 90 days, which is then posted on a winger website where it receives 302 comments.
Democracy in action.
More specifically, did you notice that the letter was written AFTER the RICO case had already been called for by a sitting US senator? Or that the article failed to disclose that the RICO case has subsequently been filed by multiple state attornies general AND endorsed by the SEC regulatory body responsible? Nope...its all just these hapless scientist 'ring-leaders' writing a letter....so political!
Last edited:
Another winger site's take with more background:
http://dailysignal.com/2015/10/26/l...s-obama-to-prosecute-climate-change-skeptics/
Personally, I find the witchhunt case against the 'ringleader' Shukla absurd. They accuse him of illegally 'moonlighting'...getting paid by his university and an outside institute....but all professors are allowed to work outside, typically up to 20% of their hours. Believe it or not, many professors could earn more money outside academia....this moonlighting as consultants, expert witnesses, allows the university to pay star professors less, and keeps tuition costs down.
They accuse him of 'double dipping'....being paid by the NSF both through the institute and the university....both those would be different (competitive BTW) grants...so it is not clear how that would be a problem....he has to fulfill the terms of both contracts separately, and then gets paid by both contracts. Maybe they mean the moonlighting again, its not clear.
The writers of the article do not understand how academic research and professorships work. They claim he sent emails from his work computer while he was 'on the clock'....there is no clock for a salaried professor...he is expected to complete the teaching, research and service requirements of his university, on whatever schedule he determines.
Moreover, 'academic freedom' insists that his intellectual activities at the university are entirely up to him.
Some more background on Lamar Smith, holding the purse strings for most US govt funded scientific research since 2012 :
http://dailysignal.com/2015/10/26/l...s-obama-to-prosecute-climate-change-skeptics/
Personally, I find the witchhunt case against the 'ringleader' Shukla absurd. They accuse him of illegally 'moonlighting'...getting paid by his university and an outside institute....but all professors are allowed to work outside, typically up to 20% of their hours. Believe it or not, many professors could earn more money outside academia....this moonlighting as consultants, expert witnesses, allows the university to pay star professors less, and keeps tuition costs down.
They accuse him of 'double dipping'....being paid by the NSF both through the institute and the university....both those would be different (competitive BTW) grants...so it is not clear how that would be a problem....he has to fulfill the terms of both contracts separately, and then gets paid by both contracts. Maybe they mean the moonlighting again, its not clear.
The writers of the article do not understand how academic research and professorships work. They claim he sent emails from his work computer while he was 'on the clock'....there is no clock for a salaried professor...he is expected to complete the teaching, research and service requirements of his university, on whatever schedule he determines.
Moreover, 'academic freedom' insists that his intellectual activities at the university are entirely up to him.
Some more background on Lamar Smith, holding the purse strings for most US govt funded scientific research since 2012 :
Last edited:
Nice NYTimes article today:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/24/s...gainst-exxon-has-roots-in-a-2012-meeting.html
The energy companies are trying to 'flip the script'....I'm not a conspiracy....you are!
The activists who have painted a bright target on the back of Exxon Mobil have “(broken link removed to http://energyindepth.org/national/secret-memos-laying-out-activists-plans-to-target-exxon/?version=meter+at+0&module=meter-Links&pgtype=article&contentId=&mediaId=&referrer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F&priority=true&action=click&contentCollection=meter-links-click),” and conducted a “real-life RICO-type conspiracy.”
So say defenders of the energy company, who in recent weeks have tried to flip the script on the activists whose work helped set the stage for the current investigations of possible conflicts between Exxon Mobil’s public and private statements on climate change.
They do mention the merits:
The Department of Justice (broken link removed) against the industry in a case relying largely on the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, also known as RICO — despite the tobacco companies’ insistence that its public statements were protected under the First Amendment. Fraud, the judge noted, is not protected by the Constitution.
The 2012 report stated, “Similar documents may well exist in the vaults of the fossil fuel industry and their trade associations and front groups, and there are many possible approaches to unearthing them.”
It also said, “State attorneys general can also subpoena documents, raising the possibility that a single sympathetic state attorney general might have substantial success in bringing key internal documents to light.”
Since November, several attorneys general, beginning with Eric T. Schneiderman in New York, have sent extensive subpoenas to Exxon Mobil seeking internal documents related to climate change. The state attorneys general have said that while they consult widely in preparing an inquiry, the decision to proceed is based on the merits of the case alone.
And our old friend Lamar is incensed that someone would abuse their subpoena power! ROFL!
Lamar Smith, a Republican from Texas who is chairman of the House Science Committee, has sent a letter to Mr. Schneiderman, citing the collaboration and resulting subpoenas as possible “abuse of prosecutorial discretion.”
You can 't make this stuff up.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/24/s...gainst-exxon-has-roots-in-a-2012-meeting.html
The energy companies are trying to 'flip the script'....I'm not a conspiracy....you are!
The activists who have painted a bright target on the back of Exxon Mobil have “(broken link removed to http://energyindepth.org/national/secret-memos-laying-out-activists-plans-to-target-exxon/?version=meter+at+0&module=meter-Links&pgtype=article&contentId=&mediaId=&referrer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F&priority=true&action=click&contentCollection=meter-links-click),” and conducted a “real-life RICO-type conspiracy.”
So say defenders of the energy company, who in recent weeks have tried to flip the script on the activists whose work helped set the stage for the current investigations of possible conflicts between Exxon Mobil’s public and private statements on climate change.
They do mention the merits:
The Department of Justice (broken link removed) against the industry in a case relying largely on the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, also known as RICO — despite the tobacco companies’ insistence that its public statements were protected under the First Amendment. Fraud, the judge noted, is not protected by the Constitution.
The 2012 report stated, “Similar documents may well exist in the vaults of the fossil fuel industry and their trade associations and front groups, and there are many possible approaches to unearthing them.”
It also said, “State attorneys general can also subpoena documents, raising the possibility that a single sympathetic state attorney general might have substantial success in bringing key internal documents to light.”
Since November, several attorneys general, beginning with Eric T. Schneiderman in New York, have sent extensive subpoenas to Exxon Mobil seeking internal documents related to climate change. The state attorneys general have said that while they consult widely in preparing an inquiry, the decision to proceed is based on the merits of the case alone.
And our old friend Lamar is incensed that someone would abuse their subpoena power! ROFL!
Lamar Smith, a Republican from Texas who is chairman of the House Science Committee, has sent a letter to Mr. Schneiderman, citing the collaboration and resulting subpoenas as possible “abuse of prosecutorial discretion.”
You can 't make this stuff up.
Fascinating: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/20/science/exxon-mobil-climate-change-global-warming.html
![[Hearth.com] ExxonMobil RICO case a slam dunk?](https://www.hearth.com/talk/data/attachments/179/179028-741a3948135ba9b857684df22e1f4bee.jpg?hash=MBFRWJPJVf "[Hearth.com] ExxonMobil RICO case a slam dunk?")
Lamar is basically using his Fed subpoena powers to intimidate several State AGs, including NY-AG Eric Schneiderman:
Eric Soufer, a spokesman for Mr. Schneiderman, said, “It is remarkable that a do-nothing Congress that has refused to take any action on climate change is now attempting to disrupt this important investigation into potential corporate malfeasance.” The office did not take part in the 2012 meeting, he said. He added, “speaking with outside experts is a routine part of the investigative process, and we make decisions based on the merits, period.”
He also noted that Mr. Smith, the chairman of the House Science Committee, is in the midst of a contentious investigation of federal climate scientists and has demanded private correspondence as part of the inquiry.
“The irony of this letter is breathtaking,” Mr. Soufer said. “Its signatories appear to be part of a multipronged media campaign funded by the fossil fuel industry aimed at suppressing the free exchange of ideas among scientists, academics and responsible law enforcement.”
Just in case you were wondering the extent to which our Fed authorities were bought, sold and delivered by the Fossil Fuel Companies....I think its pretty clear now, no?
Lamar is basically using his Fed subpoena powers to intimidate several State AGs, including NY-AG Eric Schneiderman:
Eric Soufer, a spokesman for Mr. Schneiderman, said, “It is remarkable that a do-nothing Congress that has refused to take any action on climate change is now attempting to disrupt this important investigation into potential corporate malfeasance.” The office did not take part in the 2012 meeting, he said. He added, “speaking with outside experts is a routine part of the investigative process, and we make decisions based on the merits, period.”
He also noted that Mr. Smith, the chairman of the House Science Committee, is in the midst of a contentious investigation of federal climate scientists and has demanded private correspondence as part of the inquiry.
“The irony of this letter is breathtaking,” Mr. Soufer said. “Its signatories appear to be part of a multipronged media campaign funded by the fossil fuel industry aimed at suppressing the free exchange of ideas among scientists, academics and responsible law enforcement.”
Just in case you were wondering the extent to which our Fed authorities were bought, sold and delivered by the Fossil Fuel Companies....I think its pretty clear now, no?
Last edited:
sportbikerider78
Minister of Fire
Otherwise known as 99.9% of climate scientists.
But good to know its all a hoax. thank goodness because otherwise the 75F days we have been having in November would be 85F days and Id need to put the air conditioners back in!
Sorry,,not true about the 99.9%. Did you find that number on an Al Gore homepage?
I guess it would help the man caused climate change crowd a great deal, if there wasn't so much fraud associated with the data.
There may be some man made climate change, but who can really say how much? That is the biggest question. If we regulate and drop our CO2 emissions 50% (if that is economically possible), how much impact will that actually have on the climate? And how do we know that this (warming and cooling) is not natural temperature cycles?
Moreover..let's see some proof of how much wind, hydro, solar and electric cars have decreased the impact on fossil fuel consumption and the associated improvement that has made on the earth...however that is measured. What about nuclear? That is the biggest elephant in the room to me. That outputs zero CO2.
Forgive me for not swallowing this man caused climate change theory hook line and sinker.
First it was a global cooling ice age...when that didn't happen.....
Then global warming....when 10 years proved no warming.....
Global climate disruption....
Now climate change
Climate challenges??? I'm trying to keep up here....
There is no doubt that......
Climate does change over time.
The earth has warmed slightly over 100 years.
Man does have an influence on the climate...not just emissions..but with farming, building cities, and consuming.
There is no science that CO2 can change the climate except through the intermediate step of warming.
I agree with Bernie in that we should not be giving away hundreds of millions of taxpayer money to big oil corporations. That is criminal. What good does sueing them and then giving them money do?
http://www.theguardian.com/environm...sidising-worlds-biggest-fossil-fuel-companies
Al WHO now??
The enemy you seek is Bill McKibben.Ironically, the witchhunt being led by your taxpayer paid US Rep. Smith was against a bunch of scientists who published a paper in Science that basically said the 'pause' you cite was a myth (which was peer reviewed and had ALL of the data and methodology published online as standard operating procedure, so anyone can replicate the analysis an findings). Didn't happen. Isn't happening.
Clearly, they must be destroyed, since the mythical 'pause' is current exhibit A for the denier crowd. No worries though, after it gets shown to be a myth, there will be another.
So, let's subpoena ALL the involved scientist's personal communications, financial records, work records with their employers, etc, with the full force and authority of the US congress, and then 'leak' ALL of it to a right wing website for the 'crowd' to pore over and find things that are suspicious.....and they find NOTHING. A hell of a way to run an 'investigation', sure, but maybe a great way to run an intimidation campaign.
That's EASY. The Justice Dept is DOING ITS JOB enforcing LAWS. Serious laws about big companies (that apparently own a few ranking members of Congress) lying to their own shareholders for decades about a serious threat to their business model.
The result of the RICO suit is NOT about a fine of a few billion dollars...pfft, XOM can find that in the sofa cushions. It is about forcing the company to admit the truth to its shareholders, and the consequences of that truth. Basically, that AGW means a finite amount of CO2 can be emitted in the future, the amount that can be emitted is small enough that XOM will not be able to grow its oil business going forward, many of its assets in the ground are effectively worthless, and it does in fact (allegedly, internally) project significantly reduced future oil sales and price/barrel as competitors seize market share....a process that started in earnest in 2014!
IOW, they have been lying to shareholders for decades, propping up the idea that they will be profitable forever, and thus their stock price as well. In fact, their oil business is a dead man walking and their stock is overvalued.
The truth will out.
Last edited:
More fun with Lamar, in an older article: http://www.vox.com/2015/11/22/9777582/lamar-smith-noaa
Bottom line, it used to be the case that if the Science Cmte wanted to launch an investigation (not its primary function, of course) it needed to notify all its members and have them approve. The GOP leadership changed the rules of the cmte so that Lamar can now personally launch investigations and subpoenas, with the full force of congress, without the approval of any members of the cmte even being notified, let alone having to approve.
All the better to witchhunt with, don't you know.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And a query to those who are skeptical of the merits of the RICO case....
If the RICO case had no merits, why would Exxon care? They have plenty of lawyers on board to keep busy, shoveling non-damaging documents to choke Schneiderman's intake funnel. I don't see what Lamar's incentive is for embarassing himself and spending political capital going after state-level AGs...unless someone is 'pulling his string'. If Exxon is pulling his string, then this suggests that they are using their big guns to try to shut down or drown out the RICO case....if we think Lamar is the 'biggest gun' Exxon has (who would be bigger?) then this would imply there is a case.
In a less paranoid vein, if there was no RICO case here (or other embarassment), why would Exxon fight it? Why not let the AGs 'pizz up a rope' to use BB"s phrase, and let their pet Lamar focus his efforts in more fruitful areas....like terrorizing scientists. Those AGs are not going to scare easy.
Bottom line, it used to be the case that if the Science Cmte wanted to launch an investigation (not its primary function, of course) it needed to notify all its members and have them approve. The GOP leadership changed the rules of the cmte so that Lamar can now personally launch investigations and subpoenas, with the full force of congress, without the approval of any members of the cmte even being notified, let alone having to approve.
All the better to witchhunt with, don't you know.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And a query to those who are skeptical of the merits of the RICO case....
If the RICO case had no merits, why would Exxon care? They have plenty of lawyers on board to keep busy, shoveling non-damaging documents to choke Schneiderman's intake funnel. I don't see what Lamar's incentive is for embarassing himself and spending political capital going after state-level AGs...unless someone is 'pulling his string'. If Exxon is pulling his string, then this suggests that they are using their big guns to try to shut down or drown out the RICO case....if we think Lamar is the 'biggest gun' Exxon has (who would be bigger?) then this would imply there is a case.
In a less paranoid vein, if there was no RICO case here (or other embarassment), why would Exxon fight it? Why not let the AGs 'pizz up a rope' to use BB"s phrase, and let their pet Lamar focus his efforts in more fruitful areas....like terrorizing scientists. Those AGs are not going to scare easy.
Last edited:
sportbikerider78
Minister of Fire
The DOJ isn't just doing their job. They are off the wall crazy when it comes to the environment. Wasn't it friendly Attorney General Lynch that was just investigating people just because they don't hold to man made climate change theory? Launching investigations into political opponents of the administration isn't really don't your job.
Some champions of climate change policy aren't so good at hiding the truth behind their policies.
Edenhofer..former UN climate official from 2008-2015
“One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole,” said Edenhofer, who co-chaired the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group on Mitigation of Climate Change from 2008 to 2015.
“We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy,” said Edenhofer.
This is why environmental policy gets so political. From the top down, it starts as politics and trickles into environmental policy.
Some champions of climate change policy aren't so good at hiding the truth behind their policies.
Edenhofer..former UN climate official from 2008-2015
“One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole,” said Edenhofer, who co-chaired the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group on Mitigation of Climate Change from 2008 to 2015.
“We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy,” said Edenhofer.
This is why environmental policy gets so political. From the top down, it starts as politics and trickles into environmental policy.
Ok. In March 2016 US AG Lynch was asked by a Dem Senator a (vague) question regarding whether she (the DOJ) was pursuing civil actions against fossil fuel companies and 'deniers'. And she said 'it was discussed', 'information she received was forwarded to the FBI', and that 'she was not aware of a civil referral'. IOW, she gets a tip/information, discusses it with her staff, forwards it to FBI as standard operating procedure, and that is all she wrote.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...al-action-against-climate-change-deniers.html
Given the amount of winger electrons spent discussing this 2 minute CSPAN exchange, you would think she was preparing to round people up and shoot them (which is indeed what the commenters seem convinced is imminent). In fact, this was a question about civil penalties against climate denier organizations and funders.....and there is nothing being pursued. In my reading, the Dem Senator was likely giving her a hard time for not pursuing either civil cases or a RICO case.
But I could see how an internal discussion at DOJ (an investigative body), and the decision to DO NOTHING, is totally equivalent to the House summarily changing its rules to give all its committee chairs (including those not charged with any investigative role) unchecked powers to write Congressional subpoenas against anyone they want, which than has one guy writing subpoenas to a bunch of scientific journals, universities, scientists, private citizens, and state-level Attornies-General, and then 'leaking' the info to winger sites, etc.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...al-action-against-climate-change-deniers.html
Given the amount of winger electrons spent discussing this 2 minute CSPAN exchange, you would think she was preparing to round people up and shoot them (which is indeed what the commenters seem convinced is imminent). In fact, this was a question about civil penalties against climate denier organizations and funders.....and there is nothing being pursued. In my reading, the Dem Senator was likely giving her a hard time for not pursuing either civil cases or a RICO case.
But I could see how an internal discussion at DOJ (an investigative body), and the decision to DO NOTHING, is totally equivalent to the House summarily changing its rules to give all its committee chairs (including those not charged with any investigative role) unchecked powers to write Congressional subpoenas against anyone they want, which than has one guy writing subpoenas to a bunch of scientific journals, universities, scientists, private citizens, and state-level Attornies-General, and then 'leaking' the info to winger sites, etc.
Did you read the 2010 interview from which that quote was taken:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/11/18/ipcc-official-“climate-policy-is-redistributing-the-worlds-wealth”/
Edenhofer said:
"First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy."
He is saying that the developed countries have taken (past tense) something from the developing countries....what? The ability to emit CO2 and use FFs. That is, if the Earth can only handle a certain amount of carbon emissions (his job at IPCC is to figure out how much is ok), and the developed countries emit that first, then the developing countries have lost the ability to develop by burning FFs. IOW, our current 'climate policy', namely that anyone burns whatever they want, has had in fact (de facto) the effect of shutting out developing countries from the historical pathway by which countries become wealthy.
This is indeed the major issue in determining what future climate policy the world should have....the developing world feels that we (you and me both) have gotten rich by burning fossil fuels, and **stolen their future**.
You are welcome to disagree with that logic (just like I disagree with it)....but most people in the developing world DO believe in AGW, and DO believe that we (the developed countries) have behaved in a hypocritical manner....we can burn FFs, but you must not. Edenhofer was explaining and discussing this issue in a policy interview....which was then taken out of context and misinterpreted in winger sites....for 6 years.
In fact...this logic is precisely why all the climate summits up until recently were total failures....the rich countries told the poor ones to stop building FF plants, and the poor countries said they would be happy to do that if the rich countries built them a whole renewable energy system for free. Obviously, there was some disagreement.
What has changed **since 2010** is that renewable energy has gotten bigger, better and much cheaper. It is now so cheap that the poorer countries are starting to realize that FF plants will be white elephants and that they should leapfrog to a 21st century energy system.
After all, countries have been developing faster and faster over time. In 2000 China had a GDP per capita equivalent to the US in 1900, and now its like the US in 1950. They came as far in 15 years as we did in 50. That is because they had better technology. They don't go through the whole progression of different inefficient technologies the US did 1900-1950, they just skip to the latest and greatest stuff.
And so it will be with energy.
China figured that out around 2013, starting building more wind and solar (and soon, EVs) than the rest of the world combined and we have had progress on climate negotiations.
Last edited:
Some of the major shareholders at XOM are demanding the company prepare a financial projection assuming future reduced global oil demand:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/24/s...e-as-climate-shifts-along-with-attitudes.html
XOM has repeatedly avoided a shareholder vote on this issue, and the SEC has ruled that their earlier comments on climate change were inadequate and that a vote must be held.
It was last Wednesday, in Houston.
http://gizmodo.com/exxonmobil-shareholders-vote-to-ignore-climate-change-c-1778705369
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2016/05/25/3781929/exxon-votes-against-climate-action/
The outcome of the vote was no such report will be 'prepared' or published. The major shareholders who backed the report production included the pension funds of several large cities in the US, the country of Norway sovereign fund and the Anglican church.
XOM CEO Rex Tillerson was asked:
"What happens if the company loses the coming court battles… ? How is Exxon calculating the financial risk it would face if fossil fuel companies have to pay for damage from climate change?"
Tillerson’s offered one sentence before going to the next question: “Speculating on future court events would be irresponsible on my part, and therefore those numbers would be unestimable (sic),” he said.
Also:"The world is going to have to continue using fossil fuels, whether they like it or not."
Apparently he agrees with Bill Gates that we 'need an energy miracle', by which they mean something other than existing RE technology and Li-ion EVs.
In other news...XOM's stock price has reached a 14 month high.
And the case(s) roll on.
I claim that **of course** XOM has performed this projection...it is due diligence for any major company....and they have very good accountants and think twelve steps ahead. They are simply claiming that they haven't, and won't show it to the shareholders that want to see it....and a majority of shareholders want to keep it buried. The RICO suit alleges this is a conspiracy against the concerned shareholders.
The truth will out.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/24/s...e-as-climate-shifts-along-with-attitudes.html
XOM has repeatedly avoided a shareholder vote on this issue, and the SEC has ruled that their earlier comments on climate change were inadequate and that a vote must be held.
It was last Wednesday, in Houston.
http://gizmodo.com/exxonmobil-shareholders-vote-to-ignore-climate-change-c-1778705369
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2016/05/25/3781929/exxon-votes-against-climate-action/
The outcome of the vote was no such report will be 'prepared' or published. The major shareholders who backed the report production included the pension funds of several large cities in the US, the country of Norway sovereign fund and the Anglican church.
XOM CEO Rex Tillerson was asked:
"What happens if the company loses the coming court battles… ? How is Exxon calculating the financial risk it would face if fossil fuel companies have to pay for damage from climate change?"
Tillerson’s offered one sentence before going to the next question: “Speculating on future court events would be irresponsible on my part, and therefore those numbers would be unestimable (sic),” he said.
Also:"The world is going to have to continue using fossil fuels, whether they like it or not."
Apparently he agrees with Bill Gates that we 'need an energy miracle', by which they mean something other than existing RE technology and Li-ion EVs.
In other news...XOM's stock price has reached a 14 month high.
And the case(s) roll on.
I claim that **of course** XOM has performed this projection...it is due diligence for any major company....and they have very good accountants and think twelve steps ahead. They are simply claiming that they haven't, and won't show it to the shareholders that want to see it....and a majority of shareholders want to keep it buried. The RICO suit alleges this is a conspiracy against the concerned shareholders.
The truth will out.
Last edited:
Some more big guns came out this week:
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/may/26/senators-climate-change-denial-oil-companies
Five US senators, including notably Ted Cruz, wrote a letter to the US DOJ demanding that they stop any and all investigations into XOMs conduct reporting or denying Global Warming.
Some quotes from the letter:
"We write today to demand that the Department of Justice (DoJ) immediately cease its ongoing use of law enforcement resources to stifle private debate on one of the most controversial public issues of our time,"
“Initiating criminal prosecution for a private entity’s opinions on climate change is a blatant violation of the first amendment, and an abuse of power that rises to the level of prosecutorial misconduct.”
"disturbing confirmation that government officials are threatening to wield the sword of law enforcement to silence debate on climate change"
The senators asked for a response within two weeks to confirm that the department ends all investigations “arising from any private individual or entity’s views on climate change”, and assurance that no one will be persecuted “simply for disagreeing with the prevailing climate change orthodoxy”.
In other words, the senators are arguing that an investigation in XOM's decade long conspiracy of silence against its shareholders violates the company's right to free speech.
Regarding the free speech issue NY AG has said:
“The first amendment, ladies and gentlemen, does not give you the right to commit fraud.”
Notably, of course the letter does NOT mention XOM or any oil company by name as the target of this investigation....leaving it sounding like the DOJ is conducting witchhunts against private citizens and their right to free speech, rather than a (hypothetical) RICO case against one of the largest corporations on the planet...just another innocent 'private entity' (who happens to funnel a mountain of cash to the Senators pockets).
Note from upthread that the US DOJ, specifically AG Lynch, has not confirmed that she has even started an investigation. The Guardian article reports that more than a dozen US states have started such investigations....other than NY and CA I have not seen this reported in US media.
The article ends:
Cruz has proven a staunch opponent of anyone who warns about global warming, and has called a jazz vocalist to testify opposite a meteorologist and former navy admiral. The oil and gas industry gave more to the Texas senator’s campaign than to any other candidate’s in the Republican primary election. The letter is one of Cruz’s first prominent actions since his reluctant return to the Senate.
I think where there's smoke, there's fire.
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/may/26/senators-climate-change-denial-oil-companies
Five US senators, including notably Ted Cruz, wrote a letter to the US DOJ demanding that they stop any and all investigations into XOMs conduct reporting or denying Global Warming.
Some quotes from the letter:
"We write today to demand that the Department of Justice (DoJ) immediately cease its ongoing use of law enforcement resources to stifle private debate on one of the most controversial public issues of our time,"
“Initiating criminal prosecution for a private entity’s opinions on climate change is a blatant violation of the first amendment, and an abuse of power that rises to the level of prosecutorial misconduct.”
"disturbing confirmation that government officials are threatening to wield the sword of law enforcement to silence debate on climate change"
The senators asked for a response within two weeks to confirm that the department ends all investigations “arising from any private individual or entity’s views on climate change”, and assurance that no one will be persecuted “simply for disagreeing with the prevailing climate change orthodoxy”.
In other words, the senators are arguing that an investigation in XOM's decade long conspiracy of silence against its shareholders violates the company's right to free speech.
Regarding the free speech issue NY AG has said:
“The first amendment, ladies and gentlemen, does not give you the right to commit fraud.”
Notably, of course the letter does NOT mention XOM or any oil company by name as the target of this investigation....leaving it sounding like the DOJ is conducting witchhunts against private citizens and their right to free speech, rather than a (hypothetical) RICO case against one of the largest corporations on the planet...just another innocent 'private entity' (who happens to funnel a mountain of cash to the Senators pockets).
Note from upthread that the US DOJ, specifically AG Lynch, has not confirmed that she has even started an investigation. The Guardian article reports that more than a dozen US states have started such investigations....other than NY and CA I have not seen this reported in US media.
The article ends:
Cruz has proven a staunch opponent of anyone who warns about global warming, and has called a jazz vocalist to testify opposite a meteorologist and former navy admiral. The oil and gas industry gave more to the Texas senator’s campaign than to any other candidate’s in the Republican primary election. The letter is one of Cruz’s first prominent actions since his reluctant return to the Senate.
I think where there's smoke, there's fire.
Last edited:
In case anyone is starting to get confused about the point of this thread, what with all the US and state DOJs, and US Congressional shenanigans, I will try to make it simple:
My exhibit A is this: Exxon's "The Outlook for Energy: A View to 2040", proudly hosted on their own corporate website:
(broken link removed)
Exxon and the other majors have published annual reports since I was a little kid about the state of world energy, filled with charts about the use and future needs for different fossil fuels. Often magazines will do lengthy review articles or special issues on energy, I remember one from National Geographic in the 1970s, which draw heavily from this source material.
These reports represent a decades long PR effort (that I had no problem with) that seeks to connect the dots in people's minds:
--everything you and civilization does needs energy
--we (the oil majors) ARE energy
--you and civilization NEED us (the oil majors).
And I think it was highly effective. There are a lot of people that are having a very hard time believing that we can have a modern society that does not use as much oil as ours does. Like half as much, or a quarter. They deep down thinks its just impossible.
IMO, these decades of reports have drilled into us that: MODERN LIFE == ENERGY == OIL
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson said it plainly this past week: "The reality is there is no alternative energy source known on the planet or available to us today" He is not an AGW denier....he is a Renewable Energy denier. For evidence in that comment he specifically cited Bill Gates' "controversial calls for investment in new technology over a widespread transition to the solar and wind technologies we do have."
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2016/05/25/3781929/exxon-votes-against-climate-action/
In other words: LIFE == ENERGY == OIL, there are NO ALTERNATIVES!
A little history:
First, decades ago, we had 'Wind and solar are for CRAZY HIPPIES'
then, we had 'Wind and solar DON'T WORK'
then, we had 'Wind and solar are TOO EXPENSIVE'
then, we had ''Wind and solar will BREAK THE GRID, and rebuilding the grid will be TOO EXPENSIVE"
even as lots of places and grids seem to be doing just fine with lots of wind and solar, we had a parallel narrative:
'OIL is irreplaceable as a transportation fuel'
'We can't grow our food without OIL'
'We can't make plastics or pharmaceuticals without OIL'
And now we know that the above statements are just as untrue as the ones about solar and wind. More than half of current oil goes to light transportation that can be readily substituted with existing or near future EVs, at lower total cost of ownership (!) and the ENERGY supplied by the existing GRID, with off-peak charging. The chemical and Ag uses are in the single digits of oil usage....we are not getting rid of oil, we are getting rid of half of it.
In 2016, we can see replacing half of electricity (e.g. coal) with solar and wind, and we can see replacing half of oil use with EVs. Most people think that by the time we get to replacing half, we will probably have figured out how to replace most of the other half. For materials...biomass can provide nearly all the needed feedstock
Is this bad for Rex....Yup....in a world where we use half as much oil as currently OPEC and other low cost producers could provide nearly ALL of it. In a world using half a much oil, the expensive producers (i.e. the oil sands, US oil frackers and US offshore) are all GONE. Exxon will continue as a gas company, an oil refiner and a chemical company, a shadow of its former self.
When will we get to half the oil usage? Science tells us that we must get there ASAP, and Paris says that all the countries of the earth are putting together plans to get there!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In other words: the content of the Exxon 'Energy Outlook' is BULL. And everyone knows it. OIL is (largely) REPLACEABLE and will be (largely) REPLACED, and anyone who knows econ 101 knows that XOM lives mostly in the half that is going away. We are supposed to believe that XOM's greatest minds who are great at three-dimensional chess and outmaneuvering all the competition DIDN'T SEE the coming trainwreck that will destroy their oil business?
We must believe that **because they have never issued any statements on the subject, that address the possibility in an even hypothetical way**.
They just keep peddling the 'exponential growth of oil consumption until 2040' story, the 'Energy Outlook to 2040'. And lots of folks still read it with a straight face.
This is their pivot on Global Warming....not that global warming is not real, but that there's nothing anyone can do about it. Sure, levy a $10/ton tax on Carbon if you want....our projections still see robust growth until 2040....other scenarios...there are no other scenarios.
When they are asked about the increasing ridiculousness of this position, Rex says 'The reality is there is no alternative energy source known on the planet or available to us today'.
In their single 'white paper' on the carbon bubble released last year, now taken down,
https://web.archive.org/web/20140702013306/http://cdn.exxonmobil.com/~/media/Files/Other/2014/Report - Energy and Carbon - Managing the Risks.pdf
https://www.hearth.com/talk/threads/to-strand-or-not-to-strand-that-is-the-question-for-xom.143389/
Exxon argued that their projected exponential growth in oil consumption was lower than that assumed by the other majors like BP and the US govt agency the EIA. Notably, the EIA is required by details of their charter to assume that renewable energy growth goes to zero in the near future. The EIA works for the same congress discussed upthread, and the requirement is explicit and they mention it in their report to explain what some people find to be an absurd projection.
And Bill Gates, noted technology expert and futurist, who also thinks renewable energy kinda sucks.
That's what they've got for 'cover' in 2016...a faulty analysis done by a hamstrung govt agency and the opinion of Bill Gates.
The alternative is that they have known that decreasing global demand (due to AGW) is an existential threat to their business, have known that their production and assets are more expensive than OPEC and other sovereigns, and have known about it for decades, and have done what they could to forestall the inevitable while **denying it to their shareholders**. The last bit is illegal, since it means that their financial reports do not reflect their opinion of future business prospects and company valuation.
And that is the RICO case.
Their 'tell' is their near total silence on the issue, the contested shareholder votes to maintain that silence, and the increasingly ridiculous 'Outlook'.
Here is what it says about renewable energy:
Modern renewable fuels – wind, solar and biofuels – also will grow rapidly. Globally, these sources will more than triple from 2014 to 2040. The largest volume growth will come from wind, which by 2040 is projected to supply about 2 percent of the world’s energy and nearly 10 percent of its electricity.
(broken link removed)
Wind provided 3.5% of US electricity in 2014, has already grown to 5% by 2016, and they are saying for the world to get to 10% will take 25 more years. Solar, at 1% of US electricity and its 50% annual growth rate do not rate being mentioned at all in the projection...it might 'triple' over the next 25 years. Compare that to solar's 5000% growth over the last 15 years.
They are lying, and they know it, and they've known it for a long time.
My exhibit A is this: Exxon's "The Outlook for Energy: A View to 2040", proudly hosted on their own corporate website:
(broken link removed)
Exxon and the other majors have published annual reports since I was a little kid about the state of world energy, filled with charts about the use and future needs for different fossil fuels. Often magazines will do lengthy review articles or special issues on energy, I remember one from National Geographic in the 1970s, which draw heavily from this source material.
These reports represent a decades long PR effort (that I had no problem with) that seeks to connect the dots in people's minds:
--everything you and civilization does needs energy
--we (the oil majors) ARE energy
--you and civilization NEED us (the oil majors).
And I think it was highly effective. There are a lot of people that are having a very hard time believing that we can have a modern society that does not use as much oil as ours does. Like half as much, or a quarter. They deep down thinks its just impossible.
IMO, these decades of reports have drilled into us that: MODERN LIFE == ENERGY == OIL
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson said it plainly this past week: "The reality is there is no alternative energy source known on the planet or available to us today" He is not an AGW denier....he is a Renewable Energy denier. For evidence in that comment he specifically cited Bill Gates' "controversial calls for investment in new technology over a widespread transition to the solar and wind technologies we do have."
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2016/05/25/3781929/exxon-votes-against-climate-action/
In other words: LIFE == ENERGY == OIL, there are NO ALTERNATIVES!
A little history:
First, decades ago, we had 'Wind and solar are for CRAZY HIPPIES'
then, we had 'Wind and solar DON'T WORK'
then, we had 'Wind and solar are TOO EXPENSIVE'
then, we had ''Wind and solar will BREAK THE GRID, and rebuilding the grid will be TOO EXPENSIVE"
even as lots of places and grids seem to be doing just fine with lots of wind and solar, we had a parallel narrative:
'OIL is irreplaceable as a transportation fuel'
'We can't grow our food without OIL'
'We can't make plastics or pharmaceuticals without OIL'
And now we know that the above statements are just as untrue as the ones about solar and wind. More than half of current oil goes to light transportation that can be readily substituted with existing or near future EVs, at lower total cost of ownership (!) and the ENERGY supplied by the existing GRID, with off-peak charging. The chemical and Ag uses are in the single digits of oil usage....we are not getting rid of oil, we are getting rid of half of it.
In 2016, we can see replacing half of electricity (e.g. coal) with solar and wind, and we can see replacing half of oil use with EVs. Most people think that by the time we get to replacing half, we will probably have figured out how to replace most of the other half. For materials...biomass can provide nearly all the needed feedstock
Is this bad for Rex....Yup....in a world where we use half as much oil as currently OPEC and other low cost producers could provide nearly ALL of it. In a world using half a much oil, the expensive producers (i.e. the oil sands, US oil frackers and US offshore) are all GONE. Exxon will continue as a gas company, an oil refiner and a chemical company, a shadow of its former self.
When will we get to half the oil usage? Science tells us that we must get there ASAP, and Paris says that all the countries of the earth are putting together plans to get there!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In other words: the content of the Exxon 'Energy Outlook' is BULL. And everyone knows it. OIL is (largely) REPLACEABLE and will be (largely) REPLACED, and anyone who knows econ 101 knows that XOM lives mostly in the half that is going away. We are supposed to believe that XOM's greatest minds who are great at three-dimensional chess and outmaneuvering all the competition DIDN'T SEE the coming trainwreck that will destroy their oil business?
We must believe that **because they have never issued any statements on the subject, that address the possibility in an even hypothetical way**.
They just keep peddling the 'exponential growth of oil consumption until 2040' story, the 'Energy Outlook to 2040'. And lots of folks still read it with a straight face.
This is their pivot on Global Warming....not that global warming is not real, but that there's nothing anyone can do about it. Sure, levy a $10/ton tax on Carbon if you want....our projections still see robust growth until 2040....other scenarios...there are no other scenarios.
When they are asked about the increasing ridiculousness of this position, Rex says 'The reality is there is no alternative energy source known on the planet or available to us today'.
In their single 'white paper' on the carbon bubble released last year, now taken down,
https://web.archive.org/web/20140702013306/http://cdn.exxonmobil.com/~/media/Files/Other/2014/Report - Energy and Carbon - Managing the Risks.pdf
https://www.hearth.com/talk/threads/to-strand-or-not-to-strand-that-is-the-question-for-xom.143389/
Exxon argued that their projected exponential growth in oil consumption was lower than that assumed by the other majors like BP and the US govt agency the EIA. Notably, the EIA is required by details of their charter to assume that renewable energy growth goes to zero in the near future. The EIA works for the same congress discussed upthread, and the requirement is explicit and they mention it in their report to explain what some people find to be an absurd projection.
And Bill Gates, noted technology expert and futurist, who also thinks renewable energy kinda sucks.
That's what they've got for 'cover' in 2016...a faulty analysis done by a hamstrung govt agency and the opinion of Bill Gates.
The alternative is that they have known that decreasing global demand (due to AGW) is an existential threat to their business, have known that their production and assets are more expensive than OPEC and other sovereigns, and have known about it for decades, and have done what they could to forestall the inevitable while **denying it to their shareholders**. The last bit is illegal, since it means that their financial reports do not reflect their opinion of future business prospects and company valuation.
And that is the RICO case.
Their 'tell' is their near total silence on the issue, the contested shareholder votes to maintain that silence, and the increasingly ridiculous 'Outlook'.
Here is what it says about renewable energy:
Modern renewable fuels – wind, solar and biofuels – also will grow rapidly. Globally, these sources will more than triple from 2014 to 2040. The largest volume growth will come from wind, which by 2040 is projected to supply about 2 percent of the world’s energy and nearly 10 percent of its electricity.
(broken link removed)
Wind provided 3.5% of US electricity in 2014, has already grown to 5% by 2016, and they are saying for the world to get to 10% will take 25 more years. Solar, at 1% of US electricity and its 50% annual growth rate do not rate being mentioned at all in the projection...it might 'triple' over the next 25 years. Compare that to solar's 5000% growth over the last 15 years.
They are lying, and they know it, and they've known it for a long time.
Last edited:
Agreed.
As for needing FF in the past and the present....yup. I think respect for our ancestors is pretty important...we can never walk in their shoes or know how many of their challenges have been lost to the memory hole. I am not into being ashamed of our history, nor shaming anyone in the present.
As for doing things in a 'rush'...no worries. When it comes to wind and solar, it appears that the US is clearly bringing up the rear, and not really getting in until the price point is there....and the (expensive) learning curve has already been paid for by taxpayers in other countries. Go USA.
I looked up Walmart...looks like that have an installed capacity of ~100 MW, so they probably produce about 150 million kWh per year. There are at least 10 separate solar farms in the US that have larger capacity....the biggest ones are close to 10x that size.
It looks like total solar energy production in the US in 2015 is about 40,000 million kWh, so Walmart is about 0.4% of total US solar production. For reference, they represent ~11% of all retail commerce in the US. They can afford it. Respectable, and better than mere greenwashing....but not clear what 'top solar customer in US' means. Sounds like PR.
Trying to stay away from winger sites, this bit of PR put out by MSN. solar farm to individual roof top installs? I kinda found it interesting what a disliked company as Walmart is quietly doin. hell maybe over stated by MSN http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/39-facts-you-didnt-know-about-walmart/ss-BBsYinL#image=4
Last edited:
As an XOM retiree and shareholder my head hurts. In 2005 they were supposed to tell us they would be out of oil in ten years or so. Now they are supposed to tell us they will get stuck with a bazillion barrels that are worthless. At an indeterminate date.
I think I will do the same thing I did in 2005. The full text of that follows:
I think I will do the same thing I did in 2005. The full text of that follows:
A lot of action is at the FF-funded think tanks...ALEC and the CEI (Competitive Enterprise Institute).
CEI is fighting back with a full page ad/letter in the NYTimes entitled "Abuse of Power"
https://cei.org/sites/default/files/NYT - CEI Open Letter Ad - FINAL - May 17 2016.pdf
claiming the the investigation by the state AGs is an assault of freedom of speech.
The AG of the US Virgin Islands has withdrawn his subpoena against CEI...but is standing by the others.
CEI is fighting back with a full page ad/letter in the NYTimes entitled "Abuse of Power"
https://cei.org/sites/default/files/NYT - CEI Open Letter Ad - FINAL - May 17 2016.pdf
claiming the the investigation by the state AGs is an assault of freedom of speech.
The AG of the US Virgin Islands has withdrawn his subpoena against CEI...but is standing by the others.
The noteworthy difference of course is that the Peak Oil movement was always a bunch of cranks, that never published a damn thing AFAIK in a peer reviewed journal, and got very little traction in US govt policy....except, um, the Hirsch report and some Defense Department planning scenarios.
In contrast,
1. AGW is scientific canon that has been building for 40 years, is endorsed by the US National Academy of Science, the AAAS, etc.
2. the Paris Treaty response to AGW is a framework for a global policy plan to **disrupt the oil business** explicitly.
3. XOM's official response to shareholders appears to be sticking its fingers in its ears and singing Yankee Doodle.
4. XOM's unofficial response appears to be pulling every lever they have with Congress and former congressmen (now handsomely paid at think tanks) to block all investigation into the legality of their 'official response' to their shareholders.
Last edited:
The male candidate for POTUS has named his new national political director, Jim Murphy, who was formerly president of the DCI Group a Washington PR firm, from 2002-2012:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/06/us/politics/trump-hires.html
The DCI Group is famous for representing Tobacco Companies, and forming 'astroturf' groups....fake grassroots groups for various causes such as 'smoker's rights' and Social Security Privatization.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...eet-donald-trump-s-controversial-new-man.html
The DCI Group held a 2006 conference called “Strategic Discussion Regarding the Clean Air Act." which spawned the modern global warming denial movement.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/320999-heartland-exxon-clean-air-act-mtg-2006.html
And, of course, the DCI Group has been subpoenaed as part of the Exxon RICO case.
http://www.prwatch.org/news/2016/04...-expanding-exxon-climate-denial-investigation
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/06/us/politics/trump-hires.html
The DCI Group is famous for representing Tobacco Companies, and forming 'astroturf' groups....fake grassroots groups for various causes such as 'smoker's rights' and Social Security Privatization.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...eet-donald-trump-s-controversial-new-man.html
The DCI Group held a 2006 conference called “Strategic Discussion Regarding the Clean Air Act." which spawned the modern global warming denial movement.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/320999-heartland-exxon-clean-air-act-mtg-2006.html
And, of course, the DCI Group has been subpoenaed as part of the Exxon RICO case.
http://www.prwatch.org/news/2016/04...-expanding-exxon-climate-denial-investigation
- Status