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.

(New York Daily News)   U.S. Supreme Court: ExxonMobil owes one minute of its profits to NYC for polluting its ground water   (nydailynews.com) divider line 26
    More: Interesting, U.S. Supreme Court, ExxonMobil, nyc, water supply network, groundwater  
•       •       •

4421 clicks; posted to Main » on 22 Apr 2014 at 9:38 AM (18 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



26 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-04-22 09:41:42 AM
Polution- totally worth it.
 
2014-04-22 09:42:58 AM
The fine amounts to ~28 hours of their 2013 profit.
 
2014-04-22 09:45:15 AM
Pull the CEO in and tell him he has one day to pay or he's gone.
As in Gone.
repeat.
 
2014-04-22 09:45:31 AM
Now the stock market will collapse. Thanks Obama.
 
2014-04-22 09:49:25 AM
We're sorry, we made no profits that particular minute. So sorry.
 
2014-04-22 09:58:49 AM
Still whining about big oil?

Who sits on more cash, them, or Apple, which uses slave labor to make devices you don't even need, and has a much higher profit margin?

People need to grow up and get a grip.
 
2014-04-22 10:10:44 AM
So if they lost money that minute would NY owe them money?
 
2014-04-22 10:25:19 AM
Federal government in 1990:  "Refiners, you must add MTBE to your gasoline."

Trial lawyers in 2006:  "Big Oil, how dare you use MTBE in gasoline...we're going to SUE!!!"
 
2014-04-22 10:25:22 AM
sounds like the city won the costs to fix the problem.

while some punitives would be nice, at least there was enough to fix the problem.
 
2014-04-22 10:50:41 AM

Thunderpipes: Still whining about big oil?

Who sits on more cash, them, or Apple, which uses slave labor to make devices you don't even need, and has a much higher profit margin?

People need to grow up and get a grip.


Certainly resources held in cash and cash-equivalents are the ONLY way to measure a company's worth.

Since corporations are people, the transitive property means that applies to us as well right?

Having $280,000 invested in index funds and no cash is easily trumped by the $450 cash my landscaper gets paid every week.
 
2014-04-22 10:55:34 AM
This wasn't about the money - ExxonMobile loses that much money in the couch cushions daily.  This was ExxonMobile giving the Supreme Court a chance to publicly show that it's not a puppet of Big Business in general and the energy industry specifically.  Now we know that the Supreme Court is truly neutral, and we can rely on that the next time a giant corporation wins a ridiculous judgment that makes no sense.
 
2014-04-22 11:02:25 AM

Aquapope: This wasn't about the money - ExxonMobile loses that much money in the couch cushions daily.  This was ExxonMobile giving the Supreme Court a chance to publicly show that it's not a puppet of Big Business in general and the energy industry specifically.  Now we know that the Supreme Court is truly neutral, and we can rely on that the next time a giant corporation wins a ridiculous judgment that makes no sense.


Duke Energy hopes you're right. Their ecological coal ash disaster was an "accident" so they shouldn't be liable.

www.carolinamercury.com
 
2014-04-22 11:03:05 AM
Subtarmitter is horribly bad at math.  Unless Exxon posted profits, profits mind you not gross incomes, of $55 trillion dollars.  I'm thinking that might be hard to do as that's over 80% of the entire economic activity on the entire planet for last year.
 
2014-04-22 11:06:08 AM

Aquapope: This wasn't about the money - ExxonMobile loses that much money in the couch cushions daily.  This was ExxonMobile giving the Supreme Court a chance to publicly show that it's not a puppet of Big Business in general and the energy industry specifically.  Now we know that the Supreme Court is truly neutral, and we can rely on that the next time a giant corporation wins a ridiculous judgment that makes no sense.


No, this is an accounting trick. By taking an appeal as far as it'll go, they can show their shareholders that they're doing their best to protect the company's profits, while also reducing their tax load - litigation expenses are almost certainly deductible. Also, this is a message to other places where they're polluting. They don't give a shiat about the money - it's a message to Podunkville, BFE, that they're not afraid to tie this up in litigation for five years before finally coughing up a check, and forcing Podunkville to come up with a shiatload of money for lawyers in the meantime.
 
2014-04-22 11:16:51 AM

Pangea: Thunderpipes: Still whining about big oil?

Who sits on more cash, them, or Apple, which uses slave labor to make devices you don't even need, and has a much higher profit margin?

People need to grow up and get a grip.

Certainly resources held in cash and cash-equivalents are the ONLY way to measure a company's worth.

Since corporations are people, the transitive property means that applies to us as well right?

Having $280,000 invested in index funds and no cash is easily trumped by the $450 cash my landscaper gets paid every week.


Thank you for reminding me why I have that jackass ignored.

He's good at the red herring, though, gotta give him that.
 
2014-04-22 11:29:41 AM

Thunderpipes: Still whining about big oil?

Who sits on more cash, them, or Apple, which uses slave labor to make devices you don't even need, and has a much higher profit margin?

People need to grow up and get a grip.


Water pollution will last decades.

Get yourself a grip.
 
2014-04-22 11:34:37 AM
The BIG news of the story is that the Supreme Court didn't side with Exxon.

I'm so freakin' shocked.
 
2014-04-22 11:44:16 AM

rzrwiresunrise: Thunderpipes: Still whining about big oil?

Who sits on more cash, them, or Apple, which uses slave labor to make devices you don't even need, and has a much higher profit margin?

People need to grow up and get a grip.

Water pollution will last decades.

Get yourself a grip.


Oh, don't worry - he's got one.
i18.photobucket.com
 
2014-04-22 12:18:13 PM

Aquapope: This wasn't about the money - ExxonMobile loses that much money in the couch cushions daily.  This was ExxonMobile giving the Supreme Court a chance to publicly show that it's not a puppet of Big Business in general and the energy industry specifically.  Now we know that the Supreme Court is truly neutral, and we can rely on that the next time a giant corporation wins a ridiculous judgment that makes no sense.


Most people pay almost zero attention to the corruption of our government by corporate money.   I guess soccer practice and the Kardashians are more important.
 
2014-04-22 12:31:16 PM

phyrkrakr: Aquapope: This wasn't about the money - ExxonMobile loses that much money in the couch cushions daily.  This was ExxonMobile giving the Supreme Court a chance to publicly show that it's not a puppet of Big Business in general and the energy industry specifically.  Now we know that the Supreme Court is truly neutral, and we can rely on that the next time a giant corporation wins a ridiculous judgment that makes no sense.

No, this is an accounting trick. By taking an appeal as far as it'll go, they can show their shareholders that they're doing their best to protect the company's profits, while also reducing their tax load - litigation expenses are almost certainly deductible. Also, this is a message to other places where they're polluting. They don't give a shiat about the money - it's a message to Podunkville, BFE, that they're not afraid to tie this up in litigation for five years before finally coughing up a check, and forcing Podunkville to come up with a shiatload of money for lawyers in the meantime.


Well, nothing has happened in the case of the Greenpoint Brooklyn spill, even though it's been an open secret since the mid 70s (and it's measured at at least 3x the size of the Valdez spill).  Litigation didn't even get traction until 2007.  Exxon claims since the original spill (estimated to have started in the 40s) was the fault of Standard Oil and/or other companies, they're not at fault.  Only token cleanups have been done in the last 35 years.
 
2014-04-22 12:44:29 PM

phyrkrakr: Aquapope: This wasn't about the money - ExxonMobile loses that much money in the couch cushions daily.  This was ExxonMobile giving the Supreme Court a chance to publicly show that it's not a puppet of Big Business in general and the energy industry specifically.  Now we know that the Supreme Court is truly neutral, and we can rely on that the next time a giant corporation wins a ridiculous judgment that makes no sense.

No, this is an accounting trick. By taking an appeal as far as it'll go, they can show their shareholders that they're doing their best to protect the company's profits, while also reducing their tax load - litigation expenses are almost certainly deductible. Also, this is a message to other places where they're polluting. They don't give a shiat about the money - it's a message to Podunkville, BFE, that they're not afraid to tie this up in litigation for five years before finally coughing up a check, and forcing Podunkville to come up with a shiatload of money for lawyers in the meantime.


No, even for a company as large as ExxonMobil (no e after Mobil, by the way) $105 million is a lot of money, and worth litigating as far as possible if they believe they even have a small chance of reducing or overturning said judgement.
 
2014-04-22 01:20:32 PM

Geotpf: a company as large as ExxonMobil (no e after Mobil, by the way) $105 million is a lot of money


..... wait, you were serious about that?  That's a drop in the bucket.  They spend more than that on corporate retreats and lobbying in a couple months.
 
2014-04-22 01:46:25 PM

SquiggsIN: I guess soccer practice and the Kardashians are more important.


Are you perchance referring to the music video featuring sequins and jockstraps?
 
2014-04-22 02:48:46 PM

Feepit: SquiggsIN: I guess soccer practice and the Kardashians are more important.

Are you perchance referring to the music video featuring sequins and jockstraps?


I'm probably glad that I have no idea what you're talking about.
 
2014-04-22 02:51:44 PM

SquiggsIN: I'm probably glad that I have no idea what you're talking about.


Oh? You're missing out It is hilarious and worth at least one watch if you want a laugh. Not sure if it is SFW, though. It doesn't show anything untoward, but there are a lot of suggestive overtones.
 
2014-04-22 03:50:50 PM

Feepit: SquiggsIN: I'm probably glad that I have no idea what you're talking about.

Oh? You're missing out It is hilarious and worth at least one watch if you want a laugh. Not sure if it is SFW, though. It doesn't show anything untoward, but there are a lot of suggestive overtones.


working from home has its advantages.
 
Displayed 26 of 26 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report