Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff
by MinM » Thu Apr 11, 2013 10:28 am
Arkansas Oil Spill Diverted Into Wetlands, Exxon in Charge of No-Fly Zone (Video)
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/ ... zone-video
Thank You Exxon: Mayflower, Arkansas’ New Oil Lakehttp://leaksource.wordpress.com/2013/04/07/thank-you-exxon-mayflower-arkansas-new-oil-lake/
by seemslikeadream » Tue Jul 02, 2013 7:22 am
JULY 02, 2013
The Cost's of Exxon's Negligence
Two Major Lawsuits Filed Against ExxonMobil for Arkansas Tar Sands Spill
by STEVE HORN
Two major lawsuits were recently filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas against ExxonMobil, the “private empire” behind the March 2013 Pegasus tar sands pipeline spill of over 1.1 million gallons of diluted bitumen (“dilbit”) into the neighborhoods and waterways of Mayflower, AR, located in Faulkner County.
One is a class-action lawsuit filed by the Duncan Firm, Thrash Law Firm and Parker Waichman LLP on June 27. The other is a suit filed on June 13 by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in concert with the Arkansas Attorney General’s Office, led by AG Dustin McDaniel.
Collectively, both lawsuits lay out the damning facts of the second biggest tar sands pipeline spill in U.S. history, caused by a 22-foot gash in the pipeline, second only to Enbridge’s “dilbit disaster” in Kalamazoo, Michigan. The cases also call for the spill’s victims – both people, government bodies and the ecosystem – to receive reparations.
Among other things, both suits clarify that ExxonMobil Pipeline Company dilbit has contaminated Lake Conway, the largest man-made lake in the United States, which serves as a tributary of the Arkansas River.
The class-action tort lawsuit slaps ExxonMobil with willful negligence under Arkansas state law, alleging Exxon knew Pegasus – built in the 1940′s far before the age of “extreme energy” and designed to carry light crude – would spill at some point. The suit also reveals for the first time that the spill was just the biggest of 13 other spills preceding it, meaning it was not just a spill out of the blue.
The joint EPA/Arkansas AG civil lawsuit cites Exxon for violating the Clean Water Act, Arkansas’ Hazardous Waste Management Act and Arkansas’ Water and Air Pollution Control Act.
Taken together, both suits keep the heat on ExxonMobil and on Alberta tar sandsproduction at-large as the battle over the proposed northern half of TransCanada’sKeystone XL tar sands pipeline heats up. U.S. President Barack Obama’s State Department is expected to make a decision on that pipeline’s fate in the next few months.
Class-Action Tort Lawsuit Lays Out Ecological Costs of Exxon’s Negligence
Arkansas’ class-action suit legally covers “all real property owners who have…property abutting Lake Conway…which has been physically contaminated and polluted by ExxonMobil’s toxic and dangerous Tar Sands released from ExxonMobil’s unsafe and deficient oil and gas pipeline.”
A major crux of the suit is that dilbit is more corrosive to pipelines than conventional crude, a fact ExxonMobil knew but allegedly disregarded for the sake of profit when proposing Pegasus’ flow reversal.
“Bitumen blends are more acidic, thick and sulfuric than conventional crude oil,” explains the suit. “[B]itumen contains 15 to 20 times higher acid concentrations than conventional crudes and five to ten times as much sulfur. Bitumen blends are 70 times more viscous…than conventional crudes. Additional sulfur, acid and viscosity in the bitumen leads to weakening or embrittlement of pipelines.”
In 2006, Pegasus underwent a transformation from a 20-inch pipeline carrying conventional light crude from Texas up to the northern U.S. into a dilbit line carrying Alberta’s tar sands from Patoka, IL to Nederlands, TX for refining on the Gulf Coast. The pipe wasn’t built to carry tar sands crude and was only meant to carry a maximum of 95,000 barrels of light crude per day, the suit explains, a fact Exxon allegedly knew but proceeded with the tar sands project anyway.
Exhibit A: Enbridge attempted to team up with Exxon in a joint venture partnership that would entail replacing the pipeline. Exxon turned down the deal and instead increased tar sands carrying capacity through the antiquated line to a level surpassing the maximum limit for light crude, an example the class-action cites as willful negligence.
“ExxonMobil discarded this joint plan for a new, safer and larger pipeline to replace the sixty-seven year old…Pegasus Pipeline,” write the plaintiffs. “Instead, ExxonMobil, in order to increase its profits at the expense of public safety, made a deliberate corporate decision to increase…Pegasus Pipeline by 50% [in 2009], from 66,000 barrels per day to 99,000 barrels per day.”
Rather than responding to the spill honestly, ExxonMobil tried to cover the situation up through its “command center,” also running the Federal Aviation Administration’s “no fly zone” on the FAA’s behalf. Thus, the class-action lawsuit also sues Exxon for its response to the spill, in which deployment of crisis communications public relations tactics were favored over a legitimate all-out on-the-ground crisis spill response effort.
“After the [spill], [ExxonMobil] gave false, inconsistent and misleading factual assurances to the media and public…Exxon’s suppression, concealment and omission of material facts gave a false impression to the public that the Pipeline had only experienced a three inch gash…and there was no bitumen in the oil,” the lawsuit filing explains.
The ecological hazards of the spill, which the lawsuit says Exxon actively attempted to cover up in wholesale fashion, are nothing short of catastrophic.
“The hazardous materials being transported through Arkansas and which Mayflower citizens were exposed to are known to pose serious health effects, including lung damage if aspirated, skin cancer, irritant to eyes, mucous membranes and lungs, nausea, unconsciousness, loss of coordination, central nervous system depression, narcosis and death,” the suit states.
The “Lake Conway Class” seeks absolute liability, nuisance, and negligence tort charges for ExxonMobil, demanding a jury trial. They seek tort repayment for damages suffered above $75,000 for each category as individuals and tort repayment for damages suffered above $5 million as a group.
EPA/Arkansas Attorney General Civil Lawsuit
By comparison, the EPA/Arkansas AG civil lawsuit is much more straightforward, though it could end up with ExxonMobil doling out much more money at the end of the day. The two respective bureaucracies have demanded ExxonMobil pay fines for gross violations of bread-and-butter environmental laws, just as a citizen who got a ticket for speeding would have to pay a fine.
Main problem: ExxonMobil has yet to admit, as explained in the class-action case, that it’s done anything wrong. Exxon’s now caught in a bind, having to choose between settling out of court with the plaintiffs and claiming no wrong-doing, or duking it out in court and making its case that it did nothing wrong in Mayflower.
EPA is holding ExxonMobil accountable for $1,100 per barrel of dilbit spilled if not willful negligence and $4,300 per barrel spilled if it was willful negligence. That equates to a steep fine ranging from between $1.21 billion to $4.73 billion. The state-level penalties could amount to another $4.23 million owed by ExxonMobil, as of July 1, 2013.
On the whole, ExxonMobil could owe the EPA and Arkansas AG between $4.21 billion and $4.73 billion if it loses the suit, about one-tenth of its 2012 annual profit.
Environmental Refugees: A Teachable Moment for Keystone XL?
The “Lake Conway Class,” put another way, are environmental refugees who may never be able to return to their homes again.
“Exxon’s Mayflower spill is a reminder of who bears the risks of fossil fuel development like the Keystone XL pipeline,” wrote Greeenpeace USA‘s Jesse Coleman in a recent blog post, summing up the situation. “[T]he residents of Mayflower must now live in a contaminated environment and many families will never be able to go back to their homes.”
Keystone XL proponents claim because it is a newer pipeline, it is safe and sound and another Mayflower or Kalamazoo would never happen. The facts defy this logic, though.
The southern half of Keystone XL - already over 75-percent complete via an Obama Administration March 2012 Executive Order - has been plagued by faulty welding and anomalies. Icing on the cake: the original Keystone pipeline has already spilled 14 times.
As the Mayflower lawsuits proceed and the Keystone XL northern half decision approaches, Mayflower can serve as a teachable moment as it applies to Keystone XL. Or it can serve as just yet another lesson not learned. Class begins now.
by seemslikeadream » Tue Jul 02, 2013 11:09 am
by seemslikeadream » Mon Nov 03, 2014 10:25 am
Exxon Fighting to Keep Public From Seeing 900,000 Pages of Documents in Oil Spill Lawsuit
Unprecedented secrecy in a class action suit that is seeking to determine if oil giant was negligent in upkeep of burst pipeline.
By Elizabeth Douglass, InsideClimate News Oct 31, 2014
Oil giant ExxonMobil is seeking "unprecedented secrecy" by labeling nearly 900,000 pages of documents as confidential in a class action lawsuit over an oil pipeline rupture in Arkansas, an attorney said in a new court filing.
The attorney, Tom Thrash, said Exxon's blanket assertion of confidentiality prevents affected property owners and the public from learning whether Exxon had properly maintained and repaired the 1940s-era Pegasus oil pipeline at the heart of the case, and it has forced him to file his arguments under seal.
The 858-mile Pegasus, which stretches from Patoka, Ill. to Nederland, Texas, was carrying Canadian diluted bitumen (dilbit) when it burst open in Mayflower, Ark. on March 29, 2013. An estimated 210,000 gallons of thick oil oozed into a neighborhood and waterway, sickening residents and forcing the evacuation of 22 homes. Exxon later bought most of the houses because the owners didn't want to return.
Exxon has restarted a 210-mile segment of the pipeline in Texas. The remainder of the line—the oldest part—has been closed since the spill, and is undergoing further testing. Because of the pipeline's failure, the company faces a $2.7 million proposed fine from pipeline regulators, a lawsuit by the federal government and state of Arkansas, and other legal actions.
The case brought by Thrash accuses Exxon of violating its easement agreement with landowners along the pipeline by not properly maintaining and repairing the line before it burst. The lawsuit, which seeks to void the easements and have the pipeline removed or replaced, was brought by two Arkansas couples. But as a class action case, it could now include the owners of every piece of property the pipeline crosses.
On Oct. 27, Thrash asked an Arkansas federal court judge to allow filings to be made public and to order Exxon to justify "why any of the documents produced to date should be designated confidential." Thrash said every page of the 870,000 pages provided so far by Exxon is stamped confidential.
Exxon spokesman Christian Flathman called that assertion "inaccurate," but he would not say how much of the material was marked confidential. Flathman said the company's legal response to the petition "will provide more details and background on our reasoning with respect to this particular issue."
The Pegasus case has been shrouded in secrecy almost since the beginning, frustrating lawmakers, public officials, citizens groups, affected residents, journalists and others trying to understand the condition of the pipeline, its failure and repair history, and Exxon's restart and emergency response plans.
Officials at Central Arkansas Water, which wants Exxon to remove the troubled pipeline from a key watershed tied to drinking water for 400,000 people, had to sign non-disclosure agreements so they could get enough information to more fully assess the risk.
In June, the Pipeline and Hazardous Material Safety Administration held an administrative hearing to consider Exxon's objections to the agency's proposed $2.7 million fine—but the public was not allowed to attend. Thus far, PHMSA has declined to make public any information from the hearing. The agency has not issued a final ruling on the Exxon Pegasus case, according to PHMSA spokesman Damon Hill.
PHMSA proposed the fine in a strongly worded notice sent to Exxon last December. In it, regulators said the oil company underestimated the vulnerability of the Pegasus by "selectively using" risk assessment results and relying on artificially lowered risk scores to sidestep the need for extra inspections or special spill prevention measures.
The notice also said Exxon should change its procedures to make sure risk scores "are not manipulated," that integrity management systems "are not circumvented" and that "conflicting budget goals" don’t affect pipeline safety.
Exxon rejected all of PHMSA's claims and requested the June hearing to challenge the agency’s conclusions. The company called the proposed fine "excessive."
A metallurgical report following the spill concluded that a manufacturing defect set the stage for the pipeline to split apart in a 22-foot gash in Mayflower. The report was unable to determine what caused a 65-year-old pipe anomaly to awaken and then steadily grow without detection until the pipe's lengthwise seam failed.
After months of additional testing and study, Exxon could not answer that question either.
Pipeline experts have said that the pipe in the northern segment of the Pegasus—1947-48 vintage pipe from Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co.—is widely known in the industry to be predisposed to have tiny cracks and other problems along its seams. But they stress that such defects typically remain dormant in pipelines that are properly maintained and operated.
The question of whether Exxon operated the line prudently with appropriate safeguards is at the core of both the PHMSA and class action cases. The records currently being kept secret by Exxon, PHMSA and the courts include maintenance, inspection, testing, repair and other documents that would shed light on the pipeline's condition and how well Exxon tended to it.
"Certainly the repair and maintenance of the pipeline is not a trade secret or proprietary information," said Thrash, the class action attorney. "Yet we cannot [show] the documents to anyone other than our named clients, and the class members whose property this pipeline [crosses] aren't entitled to see them."
Carl Weimer, executive director of the Pipeline Safety Trust, a Washington State-based nonprofit, was perplexed by Exxon’s sweeping confidentiality claims.
"It sounds highly unlikely there is any real reason for all, or even a majority, of those documents to be confidential," Weimer said in an email. He added in an interview that Exxon’s assertion "really leaves me scratching my head—what's in all those pages that they’re trying to hide?"
by zangtang » Mon Nov 03, 2014 11:16 am
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 153 guests
