• 9 minutes Chile Becomes The Latest Country To Commit To 100% Renewables
  • 12 minutes Does S Arabia Have 2 Mln Barrels in Spare Capacity?
  • 19 minutes Can US sue OPEC?
  • 55 mins Rally on Hold, if 69.5 don't break, 62.5 could be next.
  • 20 hours 67.50 was the low for now, $70 - $76+ back in play
  • 3 hours US disavows carbon tax
  • 19 hours Google, Hit With Record $5 billion EU Antitrust fine, To Appeal
  • 1 day Trudeau Shuffles Cabinet, Seeks To Reduce Reliance On U.S.
  • 1 hour FBI Director: Russia Continues to Sow Discord In The U.S.
  • 11 mins Britain Has Identified Russians Suspected Of Skripal Nerve Attack?
  • 2 hours Where 3 Million Electric Vehicle Batteries Will Go When They Retire?
  • 20 hours Daimler and BMW Will Beat Tesla in EV Race
  • 12 hours China’s Technology Sector Takes On Silicon Valley
  • 1 day Chartist predicting a $1 fall, after WTI drops $10
  • 22 hours Rio Tinto Says $4-Million Goodbye to Coal
  • 3 hours Iran's President Warns Over U.S. Push For Countries To Stop Buying Oil From Iran
Is This The End Of The Oil Rally?

Is This The End Of The Oil Rally?

After falling significantly last week,…

U.S. Poised To Ease Biofuel Quotas

U.S. Poised To Ease Biofuel Quotas

Though biofuel technology is moving…

Exxon Accuses California Of Climate Change Hypocrisy

XOM

Exxon has called out a deliberate discrepancy between statements made by several California municipalities and cities in lawsuits against it and more than a dozen other energy companies, and information the same municipalities and cities have put in their bond offerings from the last few years.

The company has asked a California district court for permission to question a number of government officials and an attorney from Hagens Berman, arguing that these individuals have told the court one thing in their lawsuits against Exxon and a completely different thing to prospective bondholders about the effect of the energy industry on the local environment.

For example, Exxon says, in its court filing against energy companies, San Mateo County has stated that it is very vulnerable to rising sea levels with a 93-percent risk of suffering a devastating flood before 2050. At the same time, however, two bond offerings, one from 2014 and one from 2016, say something very different, namely that San Mateo County “is unable to predict whether sea-level rise or other impacts of climate change or flooding from a major storm will occur.”

The company went on to name several other plaintiffs, including San Francisco, as making contradictory statements in their lawsuits against the energy companies and in bond offerings, including two San Francisco bond offerings that, says Exxon, do not even contain the phrases “global warming” and “climate change” in them.

Related: OPEC Won’t Compensate For ‘Small’ Supply Outages

Exxon, as well as other companies accused of contributing significantly to environmental damage—and to future risks of disaster in California—have been counter-accusing the plaintiffs of using climate change to attack their political opponents in court.

Exxon reiterated this accusation in its court filing, in which its attorneys said that “It is reasonable to infer that the municipalities brought these lawsuits not because of a bona fide belief in any tortious conduct by the defendants or actual damage to their jurisdictions, but instead to coerce ExxonMobil and others operating in the Texas energy sector to adopt policies aligned with those favored by local politicians in California.”

By Irina Slav for Oilprice.com

More Top Reads From Oilprice.com:



Join the discussion | Back to homepage

Leave a comment

Leave a comment

Oilprice - The No. 1 Source for Oil & Energy News