XTO Shale Gas Well out of control near Powhatan Pt., Monroe County, Ohio

Reporting by Scott DiSavino and Kim Palmer, Reuters News Service, March 7, 2018

(Reuters) – Exxon Mobil Corp’s XTO Energy unit said on Wednesday it plugged a blown out natural gas well in rural southeast Ohio that had been leaking for nearly three weeks.

The Feb. 15 blowout in Belmont County had spewed millions of cubic feet of gas into the air, triggering evacuations of nearby residences and raising concerns among environmental groups about health and environmental impacts.

Exposure to low levels of natural gas is not harmful to human health, according to the National Institutes of Health, but extremely high levels can cause loss of consciousness or death by displacing oxygen.

“We would like to press for a full accounting of the damage,” said Melanie Houston, director of climate programs for the Ohio Environmental Council, an environmental advocacy group.

XTO spokeswoman Karen Matusic said the company could not immediately say how much gas leaked from the well, which was about to be put into production after being drilled and fracked.

An initial report from the Environmental Protection Agency on Feb. 17 estimated the natural gas flow rate from the well at 100 million cubic feet per day. Earthworks, an environmental group, compared the magnitude of the XTO well blowout with some of the biggest methane releases in the United States.

Matusic said the company has been taking air samples since the blowout and “never picked up anything that would harm humans or animals.”

Following the well blowout, emergency responders evacuated about 30 homes within one mile of the well. Residents of all but four homes located within a half mile of the well were able to return home within a few days, Matusic said.

Ohio Department of Natural Resources (DNR) is the lead government agency at the XTO well pad. Officials at the DNR were not immediately available for comment

The U.S. EPA said it responded to a fire at the well on Feb. 15 to provide technical assistance and air monitoring at the site. Because there were no apparent release of oil or hazardous substances, the EPA said it demobilized on Feb. 21.

An unknown quantity of brine and produced water, estimated to be more than 5,000 gallons, was initially discharged to streams that flow into the Ohio River, according to the EPA.

Protected wildlife species located in proximity to or downstream from the well site are the Eastern Hellbender Salamander, Northern longeared bat, and protected fish.

See Video Here: XTO Gas Well Blowout near Powhatan Point, Ohio – YouTube

One theme: "Oil & Money"

U.S. Senate panel clears Tillerson’s path to be secretary of state

From an Article by Patricia Zengerle,  Reuters News Service, January 23, 2017

U.S. President Donald Trump’s choice for secretary of state, former Exxon Mobil Corp. Chairman Rex Tillerson, narrowly won approval from a Senate committee on Monday, but is expected to be confirmed by the full Senate.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted 11-10 to approve Tillerson, with every Republican backing the former oil executive and every Democrat opposing him.

His approval by the panel, a victory for Trump, had been in doubt until earlier on Monday, when Senator Marco Rubio, a committee member who had been Tillerson’s most vocal Republican critic, said he would back the nominee.

Tillerson’s confirmation by the 100-member Senate, where Republicans hold 52 seats, is not expected before next week. Democrats want more time to debate and the chamber may not be in session all this week.

Rubio’s backing had been in doubt after his tough questioning during Tillerson’s confirmation hearing, focusing on issues including concerns about Tillerson’s support for human rights. Rubio ultimately decided he would approve the nominee in deference to Trump, as well as to fill a critical top job.

Democrats said they voted against Tillerson over fears he might lift sanctions on Russia, where he did business for years, questions about his views on human rights and his refusal to recuse himself from matters related to his former employer during his entire term as the top U.S. diplomat.

Tillerson pledged to recuse himself only for the year required by law.

Amid Democratic anger over allegations that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election, Tillerson also raised committee hackles by saying he did not know Exxon Mobil lobbied against sanctions on Russia while he was running the company.

Senator Ben Cardin, the committee’s top Democrat, said Tillerson’s “business orientation” and responses at his hearing “could compromise his ability as secretary of state to forcefully promote the values and ideals that have defined our country and our leading role in the world for more than 200 years.”

The Senate confirmed only two of Trump’s Cabinet nominees on Friday, his Inauguration Day, a relatively low number among recent presidencies.

Democrats have been unable to block any of his choices because they changed Senate rules in 2013 to allow nominees to be confirmed with just a majority, not 60 votes. Instead, they have used Senate rules to slow the confirmation of nominees they say hold extreme views, are unqualified or have not completed ethics disclosures.

See also: www.FrackCheckWV.net

Exxon Knew About Climate Change in 1981

Will Exxon pay for years of polluting and climate denialism?

<<< Investigations are underway as to whether Exxon knew about the dangers of climate change and chose to suppress it! >>>

From an Article by Reynard Loki, Alternet in Salon.com, February 3, 2016

For the past few months, New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman has been investigating ExxonMobil to determine if the world’s largest publicly traded international oil and gas company lied to the public or investors about the risks of climate change to its future business, based on the firm’s own internal studies. In November, Schneiderman issued a subpoena demanding a wide range of documents, including emails and financial documents.

The New York Times reported that the inquiry “would include a period of at least a decade during which ExxonMobil funded outside groups that sought to undermine climate science, even as its in-house scientists were outlining the potential consequences — and uncertainties — to company executives.”

You Might Also Like

Kenneth P. Cohen, the company’s vice president for public affairs, vehemently denied the accusations. “We unequivocally reject the allegations that ExxonMobil has suppressed climate change research.” He added that the company had “funded mainstream climate science since the 1970s, had published dozens of scientific papers on the topic and had disclosed climate risks to investors.

California’s AG, Kamala D. Harris, launched a similar investigation, suggesting that other states may follow Schneiderman’s lead, possibly expanding the probe into other fossil fuel companies. Several high-profile current and former lawmakers, including Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders and Al Gore, have called for criminal investigations based on the media reports.

The growing inquiry has been compared to the lawsuits that have bedeviled tobacco companies, which concealed from the public research about the health effects of smoking cigarettes in the 1950s and ’60s. “This could open up years of litigation and settlements in the same way that tobacco litigation did, also spearheaded by attorneys general,” said Brandon L. Garrett, a professor at the University of Virginia School of Law. “In some ways, the theory is similar — that the public was misled about something dangerous to health. Whether the same smoking guns will emerge, we don’t know yet.”

>>>>>     <<<<<     >>>>>     <<<<<     >>>>>     <<<<<

INTERVIEW – I had a chance to ask Katherine Sawyer, international organizer at Corporate Accountability International, a Boston-based non-profit, about Schneiderman’s investigation and what it might mean for Exxon and the fossil fuel industry in general.

Since the investigation isn’t public, it remains unclear what exactly Attorney General Schneiderman hopes to find in the reams of documents he ordered Exxon to produce. What exactly is he looking for? Could there be a smoking gun?

What he’s looking for is proof that Exxon knew about the catastrophic dangers of climate change and chose to suppress that science — proof that the corporation made the purposeful and calculated decision to hide the truth. In addition, the investigation will look at whether or not Exxon properly notified its investors of the business risks associated with climate change.

In other words, did Exxon let its investors know that climate change will inevitably hurt its business or did it seek to obscure the truth?

In an op-ed piece in the Guardian, climate activist and 350.org founder Bill McKibben slammed Exxon, saying that “no corporation has ever done anything this big or bad.” Do you agree that the climate impact of Exxon’s alleged duplicity, if proven, make it the worst case of corporate malfeasance ever?

If it’s not the worst, it’s certainly close. The implications of Exxon and the rest of the industry’s denial and deception will have real life-and-death consequences for millions upon millions of people around the world. Certainly, the lies and deception of many industries, from Big Tobacco to Big Food, have had serious and deadly health consequences, but none will have such irreversible, global consequences for entire populations, communities and even countries.

Because of inaction on climate change caused by polluters and climate denial, entire populations will need to be relocated and their cultures will likely be wiped out. It’s truly hard to overstate the impact of Exxon’s denial campaign on the future of people and our planet.

Alan Jeffers, an ExxonMobil media relations manager, explained the company’s position regarding claims that it has been funding climate research to the Washington Post: “We were engaged with funding public policy groups on policy issues, not on science,” he said, adding, “We made our position known on some climate policies that made us unpopular with environmental activists, and they tried to position that as us funding climate denial. And that’s just not accurate.”

Does the defense they are mounting — that they are funding policy issues rather than science — sound at all reasonable?

No, it doesn’t. And I’ll tell you why. First, we know for a fact that Exxon, directly and through front groups, has funded junk science and climate denial. That’s not up for debate. Second, you don’t need to be a scientist to know that you need a good understanding of climate science for sound climate policy. The idea that climate policy can somehow be separated from climate science only passes the smell test if you hold your nose.

This affair has drawn comparisons to the tobacco industry concealing research into the health effects of smoking. Elliott Negin of the Union of Concerned Scientists points out that the Competitive Enterprise Institute, “like a number of other fossil fuel industry-funded groups…cut its teeth fronting for the tobacco industry in the 1990s to stave off tighter government regulation,” noting that CEI is “the very same think tank that reassured Americans back in 2006 that global warming is nothing to worry about in a TV commercial praising the benefits of carbon dioxide.”

Do you think this is a fair comparison?

Absolutely. Right now the fossil fuel industry is in a very similar place to where the tobacco industry was in the late 1980s to early ’90s. Just as Big Tobacco before it, the fossil fuel industry will continue to deny wrongdoing and peddle its deadly product while willfully deceiving the public — all in the name of profit. Another key comparison to draw between the tobacco industry and the fossil fuel industry is the role that they play interfering in policymaking. Tobacco-control policy is insulated from the tobacco industry in the U.N. because governments recognized the inherent conflict of interest in the tobacco industry having any say in public health policymaking. Right now, a global coalition is organizing to implement a similar provision within climate policy in order to ensure that policymaking reflects the needs of people and the planet, not corporate bottom lines.

Exxon acknowledged that it wasn’t a good idea to finance research and campaigns that cast doubt on the scientific consensus regarding climate change; in 2007, the company said it would cut off such financial support. That practice “deserved no prizes for good corporate citizenship,” wrote the Bloomberg View editorial board, also pointing out that “failing to be a good corporate citizen isn’t lying, and isn’t a crime.”

If Schneiderman’s investigation fails to lead to criminal charges, what will its ultimate impact be, if any? Even if Exxon is found to be innocent, does the inquiry have implications on a larger scale, say, for the global climate change movement or public awareness in general?

This is truly one of those cases where the journey could be more valuable than the destination. This investigation could uncover internal documents and more deceit and lies, which could help to further shift public opinion and compel decision-makers around the world to action. In addition, more states seem to be hopping on board. A couple weeks ago the governor of Vermont urged his state to divest from ExxonMobil and also coal, and the attorney general of California just opened an investigation into Exxon. So, regardless of the outcome in New York, we’re witnessing the tipping point for the fossil fuel industry’s social license.

The Bloomberg View editorial board slammed Schneiderman’s case, characterizing it as a “dangerous crusade.” Here’s what they said:

On the face of it, the company’s research on climate change and its previous public positions on climate policy not only fail to amount to fraud, they aren’t even necessarily at odds…. [E]ngaging in scientific research and public advocacy shouldn’t be crimes in a free country. Using the criminal law to shame and encumber companies that do so is a dangerous arrogation of power.

Is the Bloomberg View editorial board being a corporate apologist, or does it have any valid points?

The only dangerous arrogation of power here is that of Exxon and the rest of the fossil fuel industry controlling and eroding climate policy discussion around the globe by funding denialism to create doubt where there is actually scientific consensus. Not only did this denial hoodwink the media, it — along with millions in campaign contributions — co-opted our policymakers and subverted any attempts to take action.

There’s plenty of blame to go around and our elected officials have certainly failed to act collectively. But it’s short-sighted and overly simplistic to absolve those pulling the purse strings of Congress from any guilt. It is the very forces of the fossil fuel industry (and the groups it funds) that have rendered Congress inert and in some cases regressive on climate policy.

The parallels between Big Tobacco and Big Oil don’t end with the doubt and denial they both excelled at propagating; they extend to the health effects of their products. People died (and continue to die) because of Big Tobacco lies and manipulation, and people are dying because of climate change. Those who knew of these deadly effects and actively undermined attempts to curb them must be held responsible.

Before Schneiderman issued his subpoena to Exxon, InsideClimate News published the first installment of an exposé revealing that the company knew its primary product contributed to global warming. Writing about the exposé in the New Yorker, Bill McKibben noted the lack of media coverage of the story. Has the American media failed to give climate change the proper coverage? Are Americans tired of hearing about climate change? How enraged can the public really be at yet another possible instance of corporate abuse?

The mainstream media enabled (and in some cases supported) the false debate over climate science to go on for far too long and that’s what Americans are tired of hearing. Polling shows that across the political spectrum, people are worried about climate change as a global issue. One of the biggest challenges we face in the U.S. is that most Americans have been insulated from the effects of climate change. But in the last few years, that has changed. More and more American lives and ways of life are under threat by changing and more aggressive weather and rising sea levels. When the pieces are put together for people that Exxon knew the truth, buried it, and these are the consequences — people grow more and more outraged.

Beyond legal actions taken by government officials such as Schneiderman, what can the media and the public do — or do better — to prevent the kind of long-term corporate abuse in which Exxon may have engaged?

For climate change, the biggest thing we need to do globally is protect climate policymaking at every level from interference by the fossil fuel industry. We need to expose and challenge this interference directly, and pass strong regulations at all levels to prevent it. Moneyed oil, coal and gas interests are the reason we are still creating pipelines, export terminals and mines in the year 2016 when we know we need to immediately begin phasing out the use of fossil fuels.

As Kevin Allison and Ben Kellerman of Reuters point out, “Several oil groups now use internal carbon pricing for their assets, brag about renewable energy investments and are disclosing more information about the effects of climate change on their business — often in response to concerted shareholder demands.”

How meaningful are these kinds of changes? How much of the oil industry’s shift toward increased transparency and investment in renewable energy signal a larger move toward a low-carbon future, and how much is simply greenwashing?

This is greenwashing in its purest form. Fundamentally, their business models are predicated on the extraction and burning of fossil fuels. Anything done on the fringe — like transparency and renewable investment — is just a distraction. In addition, many of the same corporations are still investing enormous funds in front groups and trade associations deeply involved in climate denialism.

An important thing to acknowledge here is that much of what the fossil fuel industry and other emissions-intensive industries have done to “green” up their businesses is meant to stave off the political will to more strictly regulate emissions at the national and international levels. We see this with every industry facing imminent regulation — from tobacco to food to fossil fuels — the pattern is the same: as the clamp of regulation tightens, these industries position themselves closer to the policymaking process and decision-makers using such voluntary initiatives to prove their “sincerity” in finding a solution. But, in reality, they use that seat at the table to stave off regulation by arguing that the industry is 1) already taking action; and 2) more effective than the government in finding a solution.

According to Gallup, Americans’ view of the oil and gas industry is generally negative. Would Exxon’s guilt, if proven, significantly affect public opinion of the industry as a whole? Or will the impact be felt primarily by Exxon?

I think it will impact the industry as a whole. Americans are realizing that this is an industry at odds with protecting people from climate catastrophe. Exxon’s misdeeds and potential guilt will, and should, reflect on the entire industry. And perhaps more importantly, there could be consequences for other oil corporations. As we saw with Big Tobacco, the entire industry was implicated and had to face the consequences.

I’m going to ask you to look into your crystal ball. Do you think Exxon will be found guilty of lying to the public and/or shareholders and face criminal charges? If so, what kind of sentence or penalty will be levied?

There are certainly numerous opinions on the success of the New York and California investigations, but again, what’s most important is what these investigations could tell us that we don’t already know. Lawsuits resulting from the investigations into the tobacco industry changed the industry forever and confirmed what the public health community had suspected for decades: The industry was not only lying, it was actively involved in a campaign of denial and deceit.

What advice would you give to AG Schneiderman regarding his investigation into Exxon, or to other attorneys generals in other states contemplating similar inquiries?

Don’t let the industry intimidate or mislead you. There are billions of dollars of profit at stake for ExxonMobil and they have proven time and time again that they will stop at nothing to get it.

Exxon paid $35 billion for XTO

Judge Rules Exxon Must Face Criminal Charges Over 50,000 Gallon Fracking Waste Dumping

From an Article by Emily Atkin, ThinkProgress, January 3, 2014

ExxonMobil Corp. subsidiary XTO Energy will have to face criminal charges for allegedly dumping tens of thousands of gallons of hydraulic fracturing waste at a Marcellus Shale drilling site in 2010, according to a Pennsylvania judge’s ruling on Thursday. (NOTE. Exxon acquired XTO in 2009 at a cost of about $35 billion. Where did Exxon get all this money? DGN)

Following a preliminary hearing, Magisterial District Judge James G. Carn decided that all eight charges against Exxon – including violations of both the state Clean Streams Law and the Solid Waste Management Act – will be “held for court,” meaning there is enough evidence to take the fossil fuel giant to trial over felony offenses.

Pennsylvania’s Attorney General filed criminal charges back in September, claiming Exxon had removed a plug from a wastewater tank, leading to 57,000 gallons of contaminated water spilling into the soil. The Exxon subsidiary had contested the criminal charges, claiming there was “no lasting environmental impact,” and that the charges could “discourage good environmental practices” from guilty companies.

“The action tells oil and gas operators that setting up infrastructure to recycle produced water exposes them to the risk of significant legal and financial penalties should a small release occur,” Exxon said at the time.

Hydraulic fracturing is a method of extracting fossil fuels that generally increases the flow of oil or gas from a well. It is done by injecting high-pressure water and chemicals miles deep into the ground into subsurface rock, effectively “fracturing” the rock and allowing more spaces for oil and gas to come through. The tactic is generally paired with horizontal drilling.

The high-pressure water and chemical injections generally result in a good amount of wastewater, which is what Exxon is charged with illegally dumping. The specific chemical makeup of that wastewater is a large part of why the practice is so controversial, as public disclosure of what exactly is used in the water is largely self-regulated by the fracking companies. Due  to laws pushed by corporate front groups like the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), sponsored by ExxonMobil, states have allowed minimum disclosure of the chemicals used in the fluid. Though Pennsylvania does now require disclosure to regulators, it has a “gag rule” banning doctors from talking about the health risks.

The most recent study of health risks related to fracking was released in mid-December by the journal Endocrinology, which found the presence of hormone-disrupting chemicals in surface water and groundwater samples in Garfield County, Colorado – one county at the center of the U.S. fracking boom. The chemicals have been linked to infertility, birth defects, and cancer.

Additionally, a July study from the Proceedings of the National Academy Sciences of USA found that the closer residents live to wells used in fracking, the more likely drinking water is contaminated, with 115 of 141 wells found to contain methane.