If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Komo)   ExxonMobil found liable for $236 million in New Hampshire pollution trial. Company claims the amount as excessive, says it will take them more than three hours to make that much money back   (komonews.com) divider line 96
    More: Followup, ExxonMobil, New Hampshire, Exxon, groundwater contamination, Oppenheimer & Co., Legal liability, pollution, Fadel Gheit  
•       •       •

2661 clicks; posted to Business » on 11 Apr 2013 at 10:09 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



96 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-11 01:14:39 PM

cirby: EdNortonsTwin:
The Feds din't "make them" do anything. If the oil companies didn't want to pollute ground water than they shouldnt have used MTBE, period.

As pointed out above, the government pretty much did make them use MTBE. You see, according to the air pollution rules, gasoline needed to be "oxygenated" to burn cleaner. There were a few options, but the only one that was really useful and commercially viable was MTBE. Besides lowering pollution overall, it also kept the MPG pretty close to target.

Don't forget, the whole fuel industry was having to work with the car industry to make a "package" that would emit less pollutants while at the same time increasing gas mileage - and the EPA (among other agencies) basically said "use this, it's the one we know will work, we're not approving anything else that is cost-effective." Effectively, the EPA mandated using MTBE. When California banned it a number of years ago, quite a few people at the EPA were pissed at them for doing so.

The Feds actually sued California for banning MTBE.

The biggest nongovernmental booster of MTBE? The Natural Resources Defense Council.

Now, the oil companies are using other chemicals (like ethanol), which does impact fuel efficiency, and gets a huge amount of Federal subsidies per year. Overall, the swap from MTBE to ethanol is costing you a good fifteen percent more in dollars per mile traveled...


You cannot reason someone out of a position they didn't use reason to arrive at.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2013-04-11 01:19:28 PM
Juror Dawn Booker, of Pembroke, said all 12 jurors felt "very, very confident about our decision."
"It was just cut and dry," Booker said. "We all pretty much had our own decision before we went in there."


That's what happens when you get a home town jury against a visiting giant corporation.

And I agree with what was said upthread about the MTBE mandate. Take it out of EPA regulators' hide. Or apportion the damages by chemical: Exxon gets to pay the petroleum part and EPA regulators get to pay the MTBE part.
 
2013-04-11 01:22:05 PM

EdNortonsTwin: They, could have chose neither, but they made their choice, and now they have to pay for for it. You make it sound like whichever executives were responsible for releasing the fuel with the pollutant had no choice; like there some sort of gun to their head.


Sorry, I am having a hard time telling if your a troll or a moron.  For now I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're just a moron.  What do you think the phrase 'under penalty of law' means other than 'with a gun to their head?'  Knowing violations of the CAA generally carry prison terms of up to five years.  When you're in knowing violation, what do you think happens?  The government shows up (with guns) and arrests you.  http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2010/August/10-enrd-939.html

In your world, that's not 'forcing' you?
 
2013-04-11 01:25:22 PM

Boojum2k: cirby: EdNortonsTwin:
The Feds din't "make them" do anything. If the oil companies didn't want to pollute ground water than they shouldnt have used MTBE, period.

As pointed out above, the government pretty much did make them use MTBE. You see, according to the air pollution rules, gasoline needed to be "oxygenated" to burn cleaner. There were a few options, but the only one that was really useful and commercially viable was MTBE. Besides lowering pollution overall, it also kept the MPG pretty close to target.

Don't forget, the whole fuel industry was having to work with the car industry to make a "package" that would emit less pollutants while at the same time increasing gas mileage - and the EPA (among other agencies) basically said "use this, it's the one we know will work, we're not approving anything else that is cost-effective." Effectively, the EPA mandated using MTBE. When California banned it a number of years ago, quite a few people at the EPA were pissed at them for doing so.

The Feds actually sued California for banning MTBE.

The biggest nongovernmental booster of MTBE? The Natural Resources Defense Council.

Now, the oil companies are using other chemicals (like ethanol), which does impact fuel efficiency, and gets a huge amount of Federal subsidies per year. Overall, the swap from MTBE to ethanol is costing you a good fifteen percent more in dollars per mile traveled...

You cannot reason someone out of a position they didn't use reason to arrive at.


There's nothing to reason me in or out of.  Exxon Mobil and it's chins choose to stay in business even if it means polluting ground water, now they have to pay for it according to a jury of The People.
 
2013-04-11 01:25:58 PM

MugzyBrown: CheatCommando: Rarely. So rarely that when it does happen, it is newsworthy at the "man bites dog" level. Making CEOs criminally liable for the criminal actions of the corporations they run and applying the rule strictly would do more to encourage ethical conduct than any one other step.

How does a corporation commit a criminal act?  People commit criminal acts and people go to jail.  A CEO is criminally liable for his criminal acts. Should a CEO go to jail if the CFO raids the pension fund?


A corporation IS a person according to the courts.
 
2013-04-11 01:30:50 PM

CheatCommando: A corporation IS a person according to the courts.


There is a difference between saying "a corporation is a person" and "a person doesn't lose their rights when they join a corporation."
 
2013-04-11 01:31:20 PM

EdNortonsTwin: There's nothing to reason me in or out of.


Well, at least you're honest that you are unreasonable.
 
2013-04-11 01:37:57 PM

Talondel: EdNortonsTwin: They, could have chose neither, but they made their choice, and now they have to pay for for it. You make it sound like whichever executives were responsible for releasing the fuel with the pollutant had no choice; like there some sort of gun to their head.

Sorry, I am having a hard time telling if your a troll or a moron.  For now I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're just a moron.  What do you think the phrase 'under penalty of law' means other than 'with a gun to their head?'  Knowing violations of the CAA generally carry prison terms of up to five years.  When you're in knowing violation, what do you think happens?  The government shows up (with guns) and arrests you.  http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2010/August/10-enrd-939.html

In your world, that's not 'forcing' you?



Morn vs Troll - black and white.

I'll go ahead and apologize for letting it go this far before making my point painfully obvious since it's clear some meat heads on here are not capable of nuance.

I'll make it easy for you.

If your job gave you the choice of polluting and facing civil liability, or polluting in a different way and facing a prison sentence - why fark would you report to work?

If you choose to go to work under these conditions, you have made your bed.
 
2013-04-11 01:39:48 PM
*Moron vs Troll - black and white.
 
2013-04-11 01:41:09 PM

EdNortonsTwin: Morn vs Troll - black and white.

I'll go ahead and apologize for letting it go this far before making my point painfully obvious since it's clear some meat heads on here are not capable of nuance.

I'll make it easy for you.

If your job gave you the choice of polluting and facing civil liability, or polluting in a different way and facing a prison sentence - why fark would you report to work?

If you choose to go to work under these conditions, you have made your bed.


So they should have just stopped selling gas.  Sounds like a great solution for a company that sells gas
 
2013-04-11 01:47:36 PM

EdNortonsTwin: *Moron vs Troll - black and white.


Why is it that either/or, you certainly have traits of both. And an apparently unlimited supply of derp.

So your stance, as stated, is the company should have just closed down. No one else would have started supplying gasoline, they certainly wouldn't have met the EPA's requirements, and even if they did, they would still be wrong because they knew it was a bad idea and told the federal regulatory agency why with a lot of research to back it up. No one should sell gasoline, and no one should use it, period. That's the only conclusion you leave with your illiterate wharrgarbl.

Your food, clothes, and computer, just for starters, are all powered or transported by unicorn farts and fairy dust, right?
 
2013-04-11 01:50:12 PM
EdNortons Twin:
I'll make it easy for you.

If your job gave you the choice of polluting and facing civil liability, or polluting in a different way and facing a prison sentence - why fark would you report to work?


...except that's not the case here.

The choice was "either stop selling gasoline completely, or sell gasoline with MTBE."

The polluting was not done by the people who made the gasoline - it was by retailers who didn't maintain their tanks. There was no effort at all made to go after the actual people who had leaky gas tanks. The oil companies didn't actually do the polluting - that was done by people who bought their perfectly legitimate, Federally-regulated product with mandated additives.

To match your analogy, if your job gave you the choice of selling perfectly usable gasoline without MTBE, or not selling gasoline because the EPA said to use it (not only approving it, but mandating it), what would you do, especially if you knew that, used correctly, there was no health problem with the actual product (it's not harmful at concentrations found in ground water - it just makes the water taste bad)?

The EPA required MTBE (even though it wasn't even that necessary). When California banned it, the EPA fought them in court. Now that some courts are coming down with civil awards against the folks who sold this Federally-mandated product, you're blaming... the people who followed legitimate Federal regulations?
 
2013-04-11 01:54:54 PM

MugzyBrown: EdNortonsTwin: Morn vs Troll - black and white.

I'll go ahead and apologize for letting it go this far before making my point painfully obvious since it's clear some meat heads on here are not capable of nuance.

I'll make it easy for you.

If your job gave you the choice of polluting and facing civil liability, or polluting in a different way and facing a prison sentence - why fark would you report to work?

If you choose to go to work under these conditions, you have made your bed.

So they should have just stopped selling gas.  Sounds like a great solution for a company that sells gas


Yes it is a great solution, that coupled with the right PR campaign it would be a revolutionary act.  Maybe you'd feel differently if your pregant wife and kids were exposed to the contaminated drinking water and you shared in their suffering health every day of your life.
 
2013-04-11 01:56:16 PM

EdNortonsTwin: MugzyBrown: EdNortonsTwin: Morn vs Troll - black and white.

I'll go ahead and apologize for letting it go this far before making my point painfully obvious since it's clear some meat heads on here are not capable of nuance.

I'll make it easy for you.

If your job gave you the choice of polluting and facing civil liability, or polluting in a different way and facing a prison sentence - why fark would you report to work?

If you choose to go to work under these conditions, you have made your bed.

So they should have just stopped selling gas.  Sounds like a great solution for a company that sells gas

Yes it is a great solution, that coupled with the right PR campaign it would be a revolutionary act.  Maybe you'd feel differently if your pregant wife and kids were exposed to the contaminated drinking water and you shared in their suffering health every day of your life.


I am curious: are you attempting to blame a company for the negligence of third parties because you are developmentally disabled, or are you merely "trolling"?
 
2013-04-11 02:00:59 PM

Dimensio: EdNortonsTwin: MugzyBrown: EdNortonsTwin: Morn vs Troll - black and white.

I'll go ahead and apologize for letting it go this far before making my point painfully obvious since it's clear some meat heads on here are not capable of nuance.

I'll make it easy for you.

If your job gave you the choice of polluting and facing civil liability, or polluting in a different way and facing a prison sentence - why fark would you report to work?

If you choose to go to work under these conditions, you have made your bed.

So they should have just stopped selling gas.  Sounds like a great solution for a company that sells gas

Yes it is a great solution, that coupled with the right PR campaign it would be a revolutionary act.  Maybe you'd feel differently if your pregant wife and kids were exposed to the contaminated drinking water and you shared in their suffering health every day of your life.

I am curious: are you attempting to blame a company for the negligence of third parties because you are developmentally disabled, or are you merely "trolling"?


Poe's law.
 
2013-04-11 02:06:46 PM

Boojum2k: EdNortonsTwin: *Moron vs Troll - black and white.

Why is it that either/or, you certainly have traits of both. And an apparently unlimited supply of derp.

So your stance, as stated, is the company should have just closed down. No one else would have started supplying gasoline, they certainly wouldn't have met the EPA's requirements, and even if they did, they would still be wrong because they knew it was a bad idea and told the federal regulatory agency why with a lot of research to back it up. No one should sell gasoline, and no one should use it, period. That's the only conclusion you leave with your illiterate wharrgarbl.

Your food, clothes, and computer, just for starters, are all powered or transported by unicorn farts and fairy dust, right?


it's either or, because that's the way Talondel  framed it in his post.  Is reading comprehension hard for you?

The rest of your post is trailing off on tangents, presumptions and spin - so I won't waste my time with your own special brand of derp.
 
2013-04-11 02:09:31 PM

Dimensio: EdNortonsTwin: MugzyBrown: EdNortonsTwin: Morn vs Troll - black and white.

I'll go ahead and apologize for letting it go this far before making my point painfully obvious since it's clear some meat heads on here are not capable of nuance.

I'll make it easy for you.

If your job gave you the choice of polluting and facing civil liability, or polluting in a different way and facing a prison sentence - why fark would you report to work?

If you choose to go to work under these conditions, you have made your bed.

So they should have just stopped selling gas.  Sounds like a great solution for a company that sells gas

Yes it is a great solution, that coupled with the right PR campaign it would be a revolutionary act.  Maybe you'd feel differently if your pregant wife and kids were exposed to the contaminated drinking water and you shared in their suffering health every day of your life.

I am curious: are you attempting to blame a company for the negligence of third parties because you are developmentally disabled, or are you merely "trolling"?


We've already covered the this-or-that concept previously in the thread, try and keep up if you want to participate.
 
2013-04-11 02:12:17 PM

EdNortonsTwin: Dimensio: EdNortonsTwin: MugzyBrown: EdNortonsTwin: Morn vs Troll - black and white.

I'll go ahead and apologize for letting it go this far before making my point painfully obvious since it's clear some meat heads on here are not capable of nuance.

I'll make it easy for you.

If your job gave you the choice of polluting and facing civil liability, or polluting in a different way and facing a prison sentence - why fark would you report to work?

If you choose to go to work under these conditions, you have made your bed.

So they should have just stopped selling gas.  Sounds like a great solution for a company that sells gas

Yes it is a great solution, that coupled with the right PR campaign it would be a revolutionary act.  Maybe you'd feel differently if your pregant wife and kids were exposed to the contaminated drinking water and you shared in their suffering health every day of your life.

I am curious: are you attempting to blame a company for the negligence of third parties because you are developmentally disabled, or are you merely "trolling"?

We've already covered the this-or-that concept previously in the thread, try and keep up if you want to participate.


You did not address the question in a previous posting, hence my restating of it.
 
2013-04-11 02:14:08 PM

EdNortonsTwin: Is reading comprehension hard for you?


Nope. Your rambling and spewing is Unabomber level, but you have stated that exact goal, without any thought whatsoever to actual real-world impact, obliquely from the start, and then summed it up with this:

EdNortonsTwin: So they should have just stopped selling gas. Sounds like a great solution for a company that sells gas

Yes it is a great solution


So either you are complete troll, pushing Poe's law as far as you can, or you are practically in a persistent vegetative state.
 
2013-04-11 02:25:09 PM

cirby: EdNortons Twin:
I'll make it easy for you.

If your job gave you the choice of polluting and facing civil liability, or polluting in a different way and facing a prison sentence - why fark would you report to work?

...except that's not the case here.

The choice was "either stop selling gasoline completely, or sell gasoline with MTBE."

The polluting was not done by the people who made the gasoline - it was by retailers who didn't maintain their tanks. There was no effort at all made to go after the actual people who had leaky gas tanks. The oil companies didn't actually do the polluting - that was done by people who bought their perfectly legitimate, Federally-regulated product with mandated additives.

To match your analogy, if your job gave you the choice of selling perfectly usable gasoline without MTBE, or not selling gasoline because the EPA said to use it (not only approving it, but mandating it), what would you do, especially if you knew that, used correctly, there was no health problem with the actual product (it's not harmful at concentrations found in ground water - it just makes the water taste bad)?

The EPA required MTBE (even though it wasn't even that necessary). When California banned it, the EPA fought them in court. Now that some courts are coming down with civil awards against the folks who sold this Federally-mandated product, you're blaming... the people who followed legitimate Federal regulations?


If my study proved it was unhealthly and it made the ground water smelly and taste bad reducing the quality of people lives and sold it anyway, I would be guilty of reducing the quality of people lives.  I wouldn't be surprised when a jury of common people found in favor of the inevitable complainant.

ts4.mm.bing.net

If this "third party" has leaky tanks, Exxon just might be held liable.

Weird, I know.
 
2013-04-11 02:29:32 PM
weknowmemes.com

Don't feed the trolls.
 
2013-04-11 02:32:06 PM

EdNortonsTwin: cirby: EdNortons Twin:
I'll make it easy for you.

If your job gave you the choice of polluting and facing civil liability, or polluting in a different way and facing a prison sentence - why fark would you report to work?

...except that's not the case here.

The choice was "either stop selling gasoline completely, or sell gasoline with MTBE."

The polluting was not done by the people who made the gasoline - it was by retailers who didn't maintain their tanks. There was no effort at all made to go after the actual people who had leaky gas tanks. The oil companies didn't actually do the polluting - that was done by people who bought their perfectly legitimate, Federally-regulated product with mandated additives.

To match your analogy, if your job gave you the choice of selling perfectly usable gasoline without MTBE, or not selling gasoline because the EPA said to use it (not only approving it, but mandating it), what would you do, especially if you knew that, used correctly, there was no health problem with the actual product (it's not harmful at concentrations found in ground water - it just makes the water taste bad)?

The EPA required MTBE (even though it wasn't even that necessary). When California banned it, the EPA fought them in court. Now that some courts are coming down with civil awards against the folks who sold this Federally-mandated product, you're blaming... the people who followed legitimate Federal regulations?

If my study proved it was unhealthly and it made the ground water smelly and taste bad reducing the quality of people lives and sold it anyway, I would be guilty of reducing the quality of people lives.  I wouldn't be surprised when a jury of common people found in favor of the inevitable complainant.

[ts4.mm.bing.net image 300x225]

If this "third party" has leaky tanks, Exxon just might be held liable.

Weird, I know.


Franchise. Weird, I know, hard word for someone like you to understand, but that store has an owner, and it's not ExxonMobil. They own the name and license it, and the owner buys fuel from them, and is responsible for the store meeting all regulatory requirements, including the fuel tanks.

You never learned the first rule of holes, did you? Really dude, stop digging.
 
2013-04-11 02:37:37 PM

Boojum2k: EdNortonsTwin: Is reading comprehension hard for you?

Nope. Your rambling and spewing is Unabomber level, but you have stated that exact goal, without any thought whatsoever to actual real-world impact, obliquely from the start, and then summed it up with this:

EdNortonsTwin: So they should have just stopped selling gas. Sounds like a great solution for a company that sells gas

Yes it is a great solution

So either you are complete troll, pushing Poe's law as far as you can, or you are practically in a persistent vegetative state.


Or maybe your just a DBag who takes things out of context because they miss the point.  Innevitable harm will come to innocent people when profit is placed before common decency.  The result in this case was a jury finding against a company that puts massive profits ahead of said people.

Read some of Greg Palasts' investigative reporting in to the abuse of energy companies and how people who don't live in highly regulated areas like California have their environments destroyed.  It's a sad state of affairs, but don't expect people who see through this profit motive have any sympathy when they see shameless profiteers get the shaft once and awhile.
 
2013-04-11 02:37:42 PM

dabbletech: [weknowmemes.com image 240x180]

Don't feed the trolls.


I would find it better for my vision of humanity that <b>EdNortonsTwin</b> was actually a troll and deliberately invoking Poe's Law than that he actually believes the weapon-grade derp he's been spewing.
 
2013-04-11 02:41:19 PM

Boojum2k: EdNortonsTwin: cirby: EdNortons Twin:
I'll make it easy for you.

If your job gave you the choice of polluting and facing civil liability, or polluting in a different way and facing a prison sentence - why fark would you report to work?

...except that's not the case here.

The choice was "either stop selling gasoline completely, or sell gasoline with MTBE."

The polluting was not done by the people who made the gasoline - it was by retailers who didn't maintain their tanks. There was no effort at all made to go after the actual people who had leaky gas tanks. The oil companies didn't actually do the polluting - that was done by people who bought their perfectly legitimate, Federally-regulated product with mandated additives.

To match your analogy, if your job gave you the choice of selling perfectly usable gasoline without MTBE, or not selling gasoline because the EPA said to use it (not only approving it, but mandating it), what would you do, especially if you knew that, used correctly, there was no health problem with the actual product (it's not harmful at concentrations found in ground water - it just makes the water taste bad)?

The EPA required MTBE (even though it wasn't even that necessary). When California banned it, the EPA fought them in court. Now that some courts are coming down with civil awards against the folks who sold this Federally-mandated product, you're blaming... the people who followed legitimate Federal regulations?

If my study proved it was unhealthly and it made the ground water smelly and taste bad reducing the quality of people lives and sold it anyway, I would be guilty of reducing the quality of people lives.  I wouldn't be surprised when a jury of common people found in favor of the inevitable complainant.

[ts4.mm.bing.net image 300x225]

If this "third party" has leaky tanks, Exxon just might be held liable.

Weird, I know.

Franchise. Weird, I know, hard word for someone like you to understand, but that store has an owner, and i ...


Oh, I know how it works.  I know that Exxon expects to sell it's product and people like you expect they should be able to sell their product from a business with their name on it and not be liable when it poisons the ground water.

Yes, I understand you indeed.
 
2013-04-11 02:43:23 PM

Boojum2k: EdNortonsTwin: cirby: EdNortons Twin:
I'll make it easy for you.

If your job gave you the choice of polluting and facing civil liability, or polluting in a different way and facing a prison sentence - why fark would you report to work?

...except that's not the case here.

The choice was "either stop selling gasoline completely, or sell gasoline with MTBE."

The polluting was not done by the people who made the gasoline - it was by retailers who didn't maintain their tanks. There was no effort at all made to go after the actual people who had leaky gas tanks. The oil companies didn't actually do the polluting - that was done by people who bought their perfectly legitimate, Federally-regulated product with mandated additives.

To match your analogy, if your job gave you the choice of selling perfectly usable gasoline without MTBE, or not selling gasoline because the EPA said to use it (not only approving it, but mandating it), what would you do, especially if you knew that, used correctly, there was no health problem with the actual product (it's not harmful at concentrations found in ground water - it just makes the water taste bad)?

The EPA required MTBE (even though it wasn't even that necessary). When California banned it, the EPA fought them in court. Now that some courts are coming down with civil awards against the folks who sold this Federally-mandated product, you're blaming... the people who followed legitimate Federal regulations?

If my study proved it was unhealthly and it made the ground water smelly and taste bad reducing the quality of people lives and sold it anyway, I would be guilty of reducing the quality of people lives.  I wouldn't be surprised when a jury of common people found in favor of the inevitable complainant.

[ts4.mm.bing.net image 300x225]

If this "third party" has leaky tanks, Exxon just might be held liable.

Weird, I know.

Franchise. Weird, I know, hard word for someone like you to understand, but that store has an owner, and i ...


Actually isn't Exxon the one who used to own a few corporate gas stations?  Also it depends on what exactly is in the Franchise agreement as to who owned what.
 
2013-04-11 02:45:37 PM

EdNortonsTwin: Boojum2k: EdNortonsTwin: cirby: EdNortons Twin:
I'll make it easy for you.

If your job gave you the choice of polluting and facing civil liability, or polluting in a different way and facing a prison sentence - why fark would you report to work?

...except that's not the case here.

The choice was "either stop selling gasoline completely, or sell gasoline with MTBE."

The polluting was not done by the people who made the gasoline - it was by retailers who didn't maintain their tanks. There was no effort at all made to go after the actual people who had leaky gas tanks. The oil companies didn't actually do the polluting - that was done by people who bought their perfectly legitimate, Federally-regulated product with mandated additives.

To match your analogy, if your job gave you the choice of selling perfectly usable gasoline without MTBE, or not selling gasoline because the EPA said to use it (not only approving it, but mandating it), what would you do, especially if you knew that, used correctly, there was no health problem with the actual product (it's not harmful at concentrations found in ground water - it just makes the water taste bad)?

The EPA required MTBE (even though it wasn't even that necessary). When California banned it, the EPA fought them in court. Now that some courts are coming down with civil awards against the folks who sold this Federally-mandated product, you're blaming... the people who followed legitimate Federal regulations?

If my study proved it was unhealthly and it made the ground water smelly and taste bad reducing the quality of people lives and sold it anyway, I would be guilty of reducing the quality of people lives.  I wouldn't be surprised when a jury of common people found in favor of the inevitable complainant.

[ts4.mm.bing.net image 300x225]

If this "third party" has leaky tanks, Exxon just might be held liable.

Weird, I know.

Franchise. Weird, I know, hard word for someone like you to understand, but that store has an ow ...


You are advocating that sellers of a legal commodity be faced with civil liability for obeying a federal law if they do not wish to simply go out of business. Only stupidity or "trolling" can explain your statements. Which applies to you?
 
2013-04-11 02:46:21 PM

Talondel: Feds: Add MTBE to your gasoline in order to meet Clean Air Act requirements.
Gas/Oil Co: But MTBE is bad for groundwater.  Here, we did a study.  See?
Feds: Don't care.  Clean Air Act.  Oxygenate that gas.  Or else.


Yeah, if those interfering government bureaucrats had just minded their own damn business we could have still been mixing our gas the way God (and/or Thomas Midgley) intended.
img33.imageshack.us
But no, they just had to have their precious "breathable atmosphere". And now they want drinkable ground water as well? What's next, complaints that we're starving the world by turning all of their corn into ethanol? I don't know why we even bother, we should let you all go back to riding donkeys.
 
2013-04-11 02:55:16 PM
http://www.fark.com/comments/7693841/83558165#c83558165" target=_blank rel=nofollow>EdNortonsTwin: Boojum2k: EdNortonsTwin: cirby: EdNortons Twin:
I'll make it easy for you.

If your job gave you the choice of polluting and facing civil liability, or polluting in a different way and facing a prison sentence - why fark would you report to work?

...except that's not the case here.

The choice was "either stop selling gasoline completely, or sell gasoline with MTBE."

The polluting was not done by the people who made the gasoline - it was by retailers who didn't maintain their tanks. There was no effort at all made to go after the actual people who had leaky gas tanks. The oil companies didn't actually do the polluting - that was done by people who bought their perfectly legitimate, Federally-regulated product with mandated additives.

To match your analogy, if your job gave you the choice of selling perfectly usable gasoline without MTBE, or not selling gasoline because the EPA said to use it (not only approving it, but mandating it), what would you do, especially if you knew that, used correctly, there was no health problem with the actual product (it's not harmful at concentrations found in ground water - it just makes the water taste bad)?

The EPA required MTBE (even though it wasn't even that necessary). When California banned it, the EPA fought them in court. Now that some courts are coming down with civil awards against the folks who sold this Federally-mandated product, you're blaming... the people who followed legitimate Federal regulations?

If my study proved it was unhealthly and it made the ground water smelly and taste bad reducing the quality of people lives and sold it anyway, I would be guilty of reducing the quality of people lives.  I wouldn't be surprised when a jury of common people found in favor of the inevitable complainant.

[ts4.mm.bing.net image 300x225]

If this "third party" has leaky tanks, Exxon just might be held liable.

Weird, I know.

Franchise. Weird, I know, hard word for someone like you to understand, but that store has an ow ...


You are advocating that sellers of a legal commodity be faced with civil liability for obeying a federal law if they do not wish to simply go out of business. Only stupidity or "trolling" can explain your statements. Which applies to you?You expect sellers of a "legal" commodity to be immune from civil liability (in any given state) as a result of posioned ground water, because the feds said it was ok? Only stupidity or a being a soulless douche bag can explain your statements. Which applies to you?
 
2013-04-11 02:56:54 PM
EdNortons Twin:
Maybe you'd feel differently if your pregant wife and kids were exposed to the contaminated drinking water and you shared in their suffering health every day of your life.

...except that MTBE doesn't do that.

At the concentrations they're talking about in water, the only effect is... it makes the water taste bad.

Really.

At the two-to-ten PPB levels, it doesn't cause cancer, doesn't cause any other known effects To get toxic effects from the MTBE, you'd basically need to drink the gasoline directly.

Don't do that.

The only suffering would be me listening to "honey, this water tastes awful, let's get a water filter for the faucet" until I spent the $15.
 
2013-04-11 03:02:18 PM
Rules for Lawyers:

Step 1: Find a successful company earning a lot of money

Step 2: Use junk science to sue and lobby for bogus regulations for said company..call them something striking like "Clean Air" regulations so all the low-brow, "won't someone think of the children!" jury pool crowd will buy into it and ignore the real science.

Step 2: Find out what said company is doing to meet step 2 and use more junk science to sue them again, make sure to mention something like "poison groundwater" and such to cause the jury pool simpletons to freak out and buy the junk science.

Step 3: Profit and buy a multi-million dollar home and laugh all the way to the bank at the jury pool mouth breathers who are now busy whining about how high the price of gas (and everything else that requires transportation and delivery) is.
 
2013-04-11 03:06:21 PM
How many attorneys does it take to make polluting ground water supples liability free?
You could ask the respondent in this particular case but they wouldn't be able to say for sure.

Clearly they need more attorneys, lobbyists, and laws to protect their corporate profits from pesky people who want breathable air, clean water and healthy food to eat.  Damn peasants.
 
2013-04-11 03:10:01 PM

cirby: EdNortons Twin:
Maybe you'd feel differently if your pregant wife and kids were exposed to the contaminated drinking water and you shared in their suffering health every day of your life.

...except that MTBE doesn't do that.

At the concentrations they're talking about in water, the only effect is... it makes the water taste bad.

Really.

At the two-to-ten PPB levels, it doesn't cause cancer, doesn't cause any other known effects To get toxic effects from the MTBE, you'd basically need to drink the gasoline directly.

Don't do that.

The only suffering would be me listening to "honey, this water tastes awful, let's get a water filter for the faucet" until I spent the $15.


What does it matter what comes out of the faucet; you can just put a filter on it - yeaaaaaaaaaa.


Why put on deodarant, when you can just use oodles of cologne.
 
2013-04-11 03:44:59 PM
When a company gets big enough that it's normal response to any problem is "throw lawyers at it until the other side runs out of time/money", that company needs to be broken up.
 
2013-04-11 04:07:57 PM

Tyrone Slothrop: When a company gets big enough that it's normal response to any problem is "throw lawyers at it until the other side runs out of time/money", that company needs to be broken up.


Dude, the corporations have won. Our country is going to be broken up before they will be. They're a bunch of goddamn vampires sucking the lifeblood out of us. When we've been bled dry, then they'll move on to a new victim.
 
2013-04-11 04:30:18 PM

Lando Lincoln: Tyrone Slothrop: When a company gets big enough that it's normal response to any problem is "throw lawyers at it until the other side runs out of time/money", that company needs to be broken up.

Dude, the corporations have won. Our country is going to be broken up before they will be. They're a bunch of goddamn vampires sucking the lifeblood out of us. When we've been bled dry, then they'll move on to a new victim.


Do you even know what the definition of the word "corporation" is? Sound more like you are just a Marxist trying to change the meanings of words to  demonize.

I know, all  politicians are enlightened, good-hearted, individuals that are above corruption and only have our best interests at heart.

As opposed to the individuals that make up corporations. You know, your friends and neighbors that have jobs in the private sector, people that have 401Ks, and the recipients of corporate charity donations. Yes, those are the vile tentacles of the evil "corporations" communists love to whine about whose soul purpose is to kill their customers and turn them into enemies. That is business 101, right?
 
2013-04-11 04:52:08 PM
Exxon will spend more than $236M in the long run to fight it.  They will just jack up the price of gasoline by twenty cents a gallon for an extended period of time to prove a point, the same way that BP did during Deep Water Horizons.
 
2013-04-11 05:34:58 PM
EdNortons Twin:
What does it matter what comes out of the faucet; you can just put a filter on it - yeaaaaaaaaaa.

Hey, you were the science-illiterate guy who was moaning about imaginary "suffering," try to take responsibility for your own lack of knowledge.
 
2013-04-11 05:55:57 PM
Can you imagine what would have happened to the price of gasoline if ExxonMobil, or any large refiner had decided to stop refining or wholesaling gas?

The Feds would've had them strung up.

Oh, and as of 2010, just about 95% of Exxon/Mobil stations were individually owned and operated.
 
2013-04-11 06:16:38 PM

Talondel: Feds: Add MTBE to your gasoline in order to meet Clean Air Act requirements.
Gas/Oil Co: But MTBE is bad for groundwater.  Here, we did a study.  See?
Feds: Don't care.  Clean Air Act.  Oxygenate that gas.  Or else.
Gas/Oil Co: Okay, but we warned you.

20 years pass.

States: Um guys, this MTBE stuff is showing up in our ground water.
Feds: Talk to Gas/Oil, they're the ones using it.
Gas/Oil Co : See, we told you so.
States: Um yeah, we're filing suit.
Gas/Oil Co :  Good for you, go get 'em!
States: No, against you.  You thought we'd sue the Feds? Do we look that stupid?
Gas/Oil Co : What? The Feds made us put that stuff in there.  We even warned them.  Look we did a study.
States (at trial):  Gas/Oil Co, isn't it true that you knew about the dangers of MTBE 20 years ago, and even did a study to that effect?
Gas/Oil Co: Why you little farkers!
Jury: Verdict for States!
Fark: Yay! Stick it to Gas/Oil Co.  It should have been 1000 times more!

http://www.epa.gov/mtbe/gas.htm
http://www.epa.gov/mtbe/water.htm


Holy shiat. Someone actualyl understand this!
 
2013-04-11 06:57:24 PM

Talondel: Feds: Add MTBE to your gasoline in order to meet Clean Air Act requirements.
Gas/Oil Co: But MTBE is bad for groundwater.  Here, we did a study.  See?
Feds: Don't care.  Clean Air Act.  Oxygenate that gas.  Or else.
Gas/Oil Co: Okay, but we warned you.

20 years pass.

States: Um guys, this MTBE stuff is showing up in our ground water.
Feds: Talk to Gas/Oil, they're the ones using it.
Gas/Oil Co : See, we told you so.
States: Um yeah, we're filing suit.
Gas/Oil Co :  Good for you, go get 'em!
States: No, against you.  You thought we'd sue the Feds? Do we look that stupid?
Gas/Oil Co : What? The Feds made us put that stuff in there.  We even warned them.  Look we did a study.
States (at trial):  Gas/Oil Co, isn't it true that you knew about the dangers of MTBE 20 years ago, and even did a study to that effect?
Gas/Oil Co: Why you little farkers!
Jury: Verdict for States!
Fark: Yay! Stick it to Gas/Oil Co.  It should have been 1000 times more!

http://www.epa.gov/mtbe/gas.htm
http://www.epa.gov/mtbe/water.htm


Huh. In California, I remember it more like this:

State of California: New law requires you add MTBE to the gas you sell here to avert an ecological disaster to our air.
Gas Corp: Sure, we can do that. It's gonna cost ya at least a nickel a gallon more in perpetuity, and every gas station in the state is gonna have to dig up their old tanks, or go out of business.
State of California: No prob. Get right on it.

Many years pass:

State of California: That MTBE is an ecological disaster to our water! Get rid of it!
Gas Corp: Sure, we can do that. It's gonna cost you at least a nickel a gallon in perpetuity, to get rid of it though.
State of California: No prob. Get right on it.
 
2013-04-11 09:02:42 PM

The Irresponsible Captain: Fark 'em. Fark 'em with a splintered railroad tie.

The fine shouldn't be a dollar value anyway, but a percent of income. 0.5% should be plenty. A penalty should really hurt them, maybe to dissuade them from damaging other people's property in the first place.


B-b-b-b-b-but SHAREHOLDERS!

We can't have those poor, poor little shareholders miss out on their dividends.
They won't have any money to bribe politicians,
Poor babies.
 
2013-04-11 09:32:53 PM

Day_Old_Dutchie: The Irresponsible Captain: Fark 'em. Fark 'em with a splintered railroad tie.

The fine shouldn't be a dollar value anyway, but a percent of income. 0.5% should be plenty. A penalty should really hurt them, maybe to dissuade them from damaging other people's property in the first place.

B-b-b-b-b-but SHAREHOLDERS!

We can't have those poor, poor little shareholders miss out on their dividends.
They won't have any money to bribe politicians,
Poor babies.



I'm guessing that you don't have a pension, 401K or IRA.  Because most of the successful funds have shares of big oil in their portfolio.
 
2013-04-12 12:02:39 AM

MilesTeg: Do you even know what the definition of the word "corporation" is?


How is that relevant, exactly? "Corporations are made up of people, just like you and me!" True, but the corporate mission is what's actually important. Corporations are legally obligated to do whatever they legally can to make as much money as possible for their shareholders. And since it's legal to lobby Congress to change the laws to whatever benefits the corporations best (even at the expense of the citizens), then it's the corporation's duty to do that as well.

Or to put it more plainly...they are vampires sucking the life blood out of our society..
 
2013-04-12 12:03:52 AM

MugzyBrown: d23: Lessig just came out with a text version of his Ted talk called "Lesterland." Everyone needs to read it... and I mean everyone. It's the best explanation of why the system is not working that I've seen.

I read an excerpt and I think it is missing the point.

The problem isn't rich and powerful people buying elections, that's the symptom.  The problem is the fact that the government has slowly gotten its hands into every part of the economy, so controlling the government has become important.

The more influence the government has on the economy, the more people will want to control that influence.

Corporation X doesn't spend $100mm to elect a Republican because he likes Republicans, but because he thinks he can get $200mm back if a Republican is elected.


Conversely, the less power government has on the business world does little to remediate bad corporate behavior. See: the Cuyahoga river. (to use another environmental example)
 
2013-04-12 10:52:26 AM
Voice-over: A new community center for senior citizens. A lifesaving clinic for treating athsmatic children. A free job training program for unemployed veterans. What do they all have in common?

(Texxon logo shown on screen)

Texxon oil. Grants from the Texxon foundation paid for them all.

(shows news magazines with front-page stories about extravangant oil company profits)

So when we hear a lot of loose talk about "price fixing" and "windfall profits," it worries us. We want to go on helping the needy.

(cut to scene of protesters in front of Capitol Hill, demanding regulations and taxes on oil companies)

So the next time you take an irresponsible swipe at an oil company, remember, who's going to feel the pinch first?

Elderly man: If anything happens to the oil depletion allowance, I'm as good as dead.

Unemployed Veteran: If these dudes don't get some offshore oil leases, I'll be back on the streets. And I'll be mad.

Athsmatic Little Girl: Please don't pull the plug on me. Support the deregulation of natural gas.

(background music turns dramatic, logo and motto appear on screen)

Voice-over: Texxon. Do what we say, and nobody gets hurt.
 
Displayed 46 of 96 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report