Even dumber than the dumbest attack on ExxonMobil evah’

Loading

David Middleton:

XOM22.PNG

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 knewabout 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}

[…]

Think Progress

https://youtu.be/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.

Read more

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
6 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Just another stupid lawsuit based entierly upon Junk Science and lies these enviroemental leeches cant wait to suckle off the life blood of any company they feel offends and harms their pagan deity(Gaia)they worship during their stupid EARTHDAY celebrations

I am not sure how someone can sue for damages that have not happened? This lawsuit looks like a nuisance lawsuit designed to be settled out of court and to increase the reputation of the legal firms.

As the science was proven, settled, no dispute no further research required, I want all the tax dollars poured into this Jack assery since early as 1977, lets begin real scientific study proving the earth isnt flat ,the sun doesnt revolve around the earth, that if a woman is frightened by a horse when pregnant the baby will look like one when born.
This article is another example of progressive Jack Assery. Litigation gangstars should be forced to pay all legal fees for opponents for every case lost as they never give up. That rule alone would make them pick their battles carefully.

The same shill people who said that tobacco was safe now say that CO2 doesn’t cause climate change. Should we believe them this time?

WARNING. ENVIROMENTALISM CUASES STIPIDITY

@john: No one wants the planet crapped up, but research does not produce a solution. Engineering does. The science they say is solved science does not work that way. If we follow with their thought, not easy to do, why are they still trying to prove it? Pour my tax dollars into real solutions not regulations. Wind and solar aint it except on very small scale like recharging my cell phone, powering factories dont think so.
CO2 problem, try real engineering science to solve issue,not pumping it into the ground. google plasma CO2 disassociation, then drill baby drill, dig that coal, cheap domestic produced clean energy.
Next problem how to get more energy from the same drop of oil or lump of coal.
Pour my tax dollars into that.
Lawyers wont clean up the mess john. Government has been spending a ton of money without a solution.