myiW Current Conditions and Forecasts Community Forums Buy and Sell Services
 
Hi guest · myAccount · Log in
 SearchSearch   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   RegisterRegister 
Big Oil and citizenship
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 61, 62, 63 ... 79, 80, 81  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
pointster



Joined: 22 Jul 2010
Posts: 376

PostPosted: Wed Apr 27, 2016 5:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

swchandler wrote:
Thanks mac for adding a bit more to the picture. Still though, I'm not clear how Shell and Iberdrola conned the state in negotiations, and why they are now considered culpable for fraud. Maybe the average citizen will never know. It's quite possible that any California PUC outcome down the line might bury the details in a final agreement for simply the payment of a fine or restitution. I guess time will tell.


One of the things Shell did was to sell energy contracts for power produced in California to Pacific Northwest energy producers for twice their production costs. They would then buy the power back at a 15% markup, and sell it on the spot market in California, representing it as power produced out of state. This misrepresentation was in violation of the law. They then used the higher spot market prices to justify higher prices for long term contracts on the forward markets.

If you are interested in the details: http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/EnergyCrisisLitigation/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17742
Location: Berkeley, California

PostPosted: Wed Apr 27, 2016 7:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Amazing- One of the Shell shills says ..."we're not in the honesty game are we."

Tell me that isn't baked in the culture.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
swchandler



Joined: 08 Nov 1993
Posts: 10588

PostPosted: Thu Apr 28, 2016 1:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

No doubt, the situation is highly esoteric, and admittedly beyond my knowledge and experience. Maybe that's why a judgment took so long to ferret out.

Let's see how Shell emerges from the whole thing, and what penalties are ultimately imposed. Any guesses how long it will take to unfold?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17742
Location: Berkeley, California

PostPosted: Wed Aug 03, 2016 10:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Just sayin':

Quote:
HOUSTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Chemical Safety Board said on Tuesday workers were injured in incidents between 2010 and 2014 at Tesoro Corp's San Francisco Bay-area refinery in Martinez, California because of a weak safety culture the company permitted to exist.

"The safety culture at the Tesoro Martinez refinery created conditions conducive to the occurrence and recurrence of process safety incidents that caused worker injuries at the refinery over several years," the board said in the final report of a case study of incidents in which workers were sprayed by sulfuric acid.

The case study described 15 instances between 2010 and 2014 when workers were burned by sulfuric acid from the alkylation unit.


Actual citizens would be in jail.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17742
Location: Berkeley, California

PostPosted: Fri Sep 30, 2016 1:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

More corporate good citizenship from citizen Exxon:

Quote:
The Boston-based Conservation Law Foundation is calling for more than $100 million in fines against energy giant ExxonMobil in a lawsuit filed in district court Thursday over what it claims is a decades-long pollution of the Mystic River and willful ignorance of the projected dangers of climate change. Exxon is disputing the claims and vowing to fight the lawsuit. (Boston Herald)


Trump is not doing so well with oil and gas campaign contributions--they appear to not want to back a loser--but they are donating overwhelmingly to Republicans. Free speech at work under Citizens United:

https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/recips.php?ind=E01&cycle=2016&recipdetail=A&sortorder=U
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
techno900



Joined: 28 Mar 2001
Posts: 4161

PostPosted: Fri Sep 30, 2016 2:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mac posted:
Quote:
willful ignorance of the projected dangers of climate change

While I think there is global warming, and man plays a role, getting sued for "willful ignorance of the projected dangers of climate change" is a really scary approach to pushing one's agenda. Pollution is one thing, but this is ridiculous. If it flies, I would be really shocked.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mrgybe



Joined: 01 Jul 2008
Posts: 5180

PostPosted: Fri Sep 30, 2016 2:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

On that same topic....... I posted the question below a month or so ago and received no responses. I do recall how warmly our Exxon obsessed history major supported the investigations into Exxon's 40 year old "lies" about global warming. Since he seems to have time to watch everything Exxon does, perhaps he can update us. Thank you.

mrgybe wrote:
How's that investigation of Exxon by the cabal of 17 Democrat AG's and Al Gore going? I'm sure such an august body must have uncovered some bombshells by now, confirming the serious allegations they so proudly and publicly made. Otherwise they would look like a bunch of ill-informed, vote-grubbing fools.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17742
Location: Berkeley, California

PostPosted: Fri Sep 30, 2016 7:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The man who yearns for the inquisition knows cabals. Which one were you needing an update on--Whitewater, Benghazi, e-mails, or the Clinton Foundation?

Isn't it amusing that the Clinton Foundation is more transparent, and accomplishes more than either the Trump Foundation or the Bush Foundation? Try getting information from either one.

Are you ready to apologize for the lies you told about the Clinton's looting their foundation?

And why would anyone want to investigate Exxon about the lies they've told their shareholders instead of the general public? Are there laws about that? Maybe you can Google it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mrgybe



Joined: 01 Jul 2008
Posts: 5180

PostPosted: Sat Oct 01, 2016 11:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Since the angry man from Berkeley has twice declined to update us on an action against Exxon that was so dear to his heart/ biases, let me help. The 17 Democrat buffoons and their clownish figurehead Al Gore, who preened in front of the cameras while slandering a major US corporation, have all slithered back under their rocks. This was a clear, and probably illegal conspiracy to intimidate Exxon. It didnt work. They and their ignorant, hopelessly biased cheerleaders are now changing the subject (see above).

I've said it before. Treat anything he posts with great caution. He makes stuff up to reinforce his prejudices........and when exposed, makes stuff about those who exposed him.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17742
Location: Berkeley, California

PostPosted: Sat Oct 01, 2016 1:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

As quoted earlier, the oil companies--and their shills--brag that they are not in the honesty business. That is so correct.


Quote:
The Securities and Exchange Commission is reportedly investigating Exxon Mobil over how it factors in climate risk in pricing its projects.

The Wall Street Journal also reported that the investigation is looking into the company's accounting practices.

Exxon shares neared a session low after the report and ended the day about 1.5 percent lower.

The SEC declined to comment to CNBC.

The company is working with the SEC, said Alan Jeffers, a spokesman for Exxon.


Republican flacks for big oil quickly counterattack:

Quote:
The chairman of a House committee sent a letter Thursday to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) requesting information related to its probe of Exxon Mobil. The letter argues that the Exxon investigation could be a political witch-hunt against the oil company.

“It appears from press accounts that the SEC’s investigative actions, which date back to at least August of this year, are couched in concerns related to the science of climate change,” Texas Republican Rep. Lamar Smith’s letter reads. The letter was addressed to SEC
Chair Mary Jo White.


Of course, Exxon sues the Attorney General's that want to investigate them:

Quote:
ExxonMobil sued a second attorney general involved in the fraud investigation against the company this week. The investigation, brought by attorneys general around the country and some environmental groups, looks into whether the oil company was hiding the truth about climate science from the public and their investors.

After suing Virgin Islands Attorney General Claude Walker in April on similar claims, Exxon’s next target is Maura Healey, the attorney general in Massachusetts. Healey is one of the attorneys general in the self-titled “AGs United for Clean Power” involved in the investigation.

Exxon accused Healey of using the investigation for political purposes by “targeting the speech of [her] political opponents” and “exposing [the company’s] documents that may be politically useful to climate activists,” according to the lawsuit. The company argues that the investigation is a violation of free speech protected under the First Amendment, and conservative representatives and attorneys general opposing the investigation agree. In addition, Exxon claimed the investigation violates their Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights.

Healey joined 16 other attorneys general and eight climate environmental groups that subpoenaed Exxon for documents as far back as the 1970s. The company responded that “demands for millions of documents that span four decades are not justified by any legitimate law enforcement objective.” The law which was potentially violated has a four-year statute of limitations, which is the company’s defense for why Healey cannot investigate Exxon based on this law. Further, the lawsuit claimed that in that past five years, the company has not “sold fossil fuel derived products” or “owned or operated a single retail store or gas station” in her state.

That claim can seem odd, given that the company’s own website shows over a hundred Mobil gas stations, and more than one Exxon station currently in operation in Massachusetts. Exxon is differentiating service stations that sell fuel under Exxon banners but are owned and operated by others. This qualification is likely lost on the vast majority of Healey’s Bay State constituents who buy gas from the Mobil station. Still, Exxon made the announcement they were not directly selling their gas in Massachusetts and Maine in 2014, which is within the statute of limitations of the law in question.


Hmm, mrgybe's spin is somewhat less than complete. Shocking.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 61, 62, 63 ... 79, 80, 81  Next
Page 62 of 81

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

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

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group