• 9 hours What will happen with Venezuela's oil sector? Privatization needed?
  • 16 hours I am buying Huawei phone
  • 13 hours Yemen's Rebels Step Up Attacks on Aramco Oil Facilities
  • 14 hours Autobots Roll Out! - Transforming Robot Unveiled In Japan
  • 13 hours Shell and Total Results Buoyed By Higher Oil Prices. Results From Exxon And Chevron Are Expected On Friday
  • 11 hours Here we go! Oil Heads Up To $74 a Barrel, But U.S. Bonds, Crude Supply Cast A Pall
  • 24 hours Saudi Arabia Looks To Raise $10bn In Privatization Scheme
  • 13 hours Comprehensive List of Factors that affect crude oil price
  • 2 days China Has The Ultimate Population Control Weapon
  • 1 day Electric Buses are Eating into Oil Demand
  • 2 days What happened to stocks yesterday?
  • 19 hours libya's oil disruption to send oil prices up?
  • 14 hours Large-Cap Oil Earnings: What to Watch
  • 2 days Trump's top energy adviser resigns
  • 2 days China's Yuan Oil Contracts: No Liquidity, but It Will be Built
  • 8 hours Can Saudi Arabia Afford Vision 2030?
Expect Much Tighter Oil Markets

Expect Much Tighter Oil Markets

Saudi oil minister al-Falih has…

Hedge Funds Are Certain Oil Prices Will Head Higher

Hedge Funds Are Certain Oil Prices Will Head Higher

As geopolitical pressure weighs on…

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