Fire Earth

Earth is fighting to stay alive. Mass dieoffs, triggered by anthropogenic assault and fallout of planetary defense systems offsetting the impact, could begin anytime!

Posts Tagged ‘Chevron’

What is it with NOLA Federal Judges and Big Oil?

Posted by feww on February 14, 2015

NOLA federal judge dismisses wetlands damage lawsuit against 88 oil and gas companies

A New Orleans federal judge, U.S. District Judge Nannette Jolivette Brown, has dismissed a wetlands damage lawsuit by SLFPAE, a levee authority, that sought to force 88 oil, gas and pipeline companies to repair or pay for damages to wetlands.

[SLFPAE is the Southeast Louisiana Flood Protection Authority (East), which covers three consolidated districts in NOLA: East Jefferson Levee District, Orleans Levee District, and Lake Borgne Basin Levee District.]

The lawsuit, which was filed in 2013 by SLFPAE, contended that the energy companies had dug more than 10,000 miles of oil and gas canals and pipelines through Louisiana’s fragile wetlands, destroying the ecosystem and reducing the effectiveness of the recently-rebuilt levee system that protects most of metro New Orleans from catastrophic flooding.

“The product of this network is an ecosystem so seriously diseased that its complete demise is inevitable if no action is taken,” said the suit.

The suit attempted to get the defendants to either repair the damage to the compromised environmental buffer zone, or pay damages to the authority to improve the levee system.

However, the Judge said in her 49-page ruling that SLFPA didn’t have enough legal standing to justify a financial claim against the companies.

“We are gratified by this ruling to dismiss this ill-conceived, unwise and divisive litigation, which we have contended all along was nothing more than an attempt to subvert the existing legal and regulatory processes,” said Greg Beuerman, a spokesperson for Shell, Chevron and BP, all defendants in the suit.

“We appreciate the judge’s ruling and are pleased that this frivolous lawsuit has come to an end,” said the deputy communications director for Gov. Bobby [NO-GO Zones] Jindal.

Plaintiff initially named 149 defendants.However, only 88 defendants remain in this litigation, according to the court documents.

Factual Background [from the 49-page court-ruling – Case 2:13-cv-05410-NJB-DEK Document 529 Filed 02/13/15 ]

Defendants are eighty-eight oil and gas companies operating in what Plaintiff refers to as the “Buffer Zone.”

The Buffer Zone “extends from East of the Mississippi River through the Breton Sound Basin, the Biloxi Marsh, and the coastal wetlands of eastern New Orleans and up to Lake St. Catherine.”

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ oil and gas operations have led to coastal erosion in the Buffer Zone, making south Louisiana more vulnerable to severe weather and flooding. According to Plaintiff, “[c]oastal lands have for centuries provided a crucial buffer zone between south Louisiana’s communities and the violent wave action and storm surge that tropical storms and hurricanes transmit from the Gulf of Mexico.” However, “[h]undreds of thousands of acres of coastal lands that once protected south Louisiana are now gone as a result of oil and gas activities.” Specifically, Plaintiff asserts that Defendants have “dredged a network of canals to access oil and gas wells and to transport the many products and by-products of oil and gas production.” This canal network, in conjunction with “the altered hydrology associated with oil and gas activities,” has caused vegetation die-off, sedimentation inhibition, erosion, and submergence—all leading to coastal land loss.

In addition to the initial dredging, Plaintiff maintains that Defendants “exacerbate direct land loss by failing to maintain the canal network and banks of the canals that Defendants have dredged, used, or otherwise overseen.”

This failure has “caused both the erosion of the canal banks and expansion beyond their originally permitted widths and depths of the canals comprising that network.”

Looking beyond the alleged effects of the canal network, Plaintiff identifies ten other oil and gas activities that, it claims, “drastically inhibit the natural hydrological patterns and processes of the coastal lands”—road dumps, ring levees, drilling activities, fluid withdrawal, seismic surveys, marsh buggies, spoil disposal/ dispersal, watercraft navigation, impoundments, and propwashing/ maintenance dredging.

Posted in News Alert | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

AVATAR !!!

Posted by feww on March 5, 2010

CANADA’s AVATAR SANDS

The largest oil exporter to the United States,  Canada extracts about 50 percent of its crude oil supplies from the dirty oil sands.


High Res (5.3 MB PDF)

Related Links:

Posted in dirty energy, energy dinosaurs, oil industry, oil sands, TAR SANDS | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

French oil giant Total pleads guilty

Posted by feww on November 13, 2009

Total UK, a subsidiary of French oil giant Total SA, pleads guilty to 2005 UK explosion charges

Total UK pleaded guilty to two charges of breaching the UK’s Health and Safety Act and one of causing pollution.

A major explosion at the Buncefield oil storage facility in Hertfordshire on December 11, 2005 devastated the area, injuring 43 people and forcing more than 2,000 others to evacuate their homes.

Buncefield
The Buncefield explosion measured 2.4 on the Richter scale and could be heard 200 km away. Photo: AFP. Image may be subject to copyright.

In what was said to be the largest explosions in Europe since after World War 2, a vapor cloud formed after 300 tons of petrol was spilled, ignited resulting in an explosion with an intensity  equivalent to a Magnitude 2.4 earthquake.

The oil terminal was jointly owned by two of the world’s giant oil companies: the French company Total,  and the US company Chevron.

“Buildings on the surrounding industrial estate – and some homes up to three miles from the scene – suffered severe structural damage. The depot held massive stocks of not only oil and petrol but also the aviation fuel kerosene, used to supply airports across the region including Heathrow and Luton.” UKPA reported.

The High Court in the UK ruled in March 2009 that Total should pay £750m [$1.24billion] in damages to the individuals and businesses who sustained losses as a result of the explosion.  Total UK will appeal the ruling next year, the report said.

Related Links:

Related News Links:

Recent Oil Spills:

Posted in Buncefield depot, damage award, oil company fined | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Oil Spills, Earthquakes and Faults

Posted by feww on October 31, 2009

Oil Spills NO Different to Earthquakes

They Both Spell Disaster, Occur Because of Faults and Happen Regularly in San Francisco Bay

Earthquakes occur in SFB because of geological faults: San Gregorio fault, San Andreas fault, Mt Diablo fault… and Hayward fault. Oil spills occur there as a result of oil companies faults: Arco’s fault, BP’s fault, Chevron’s fault, ConocoPhillips’s fault, Exxon’s fault… and Shell’s fault!

You’d forgiven for thinking there must be an oil spill and an earthquake in the SFBA each day! Because you’d almost be right.

dubai star
The oil slick from the Dubai Star, an oil tanker  located at Anchorage 9 south of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge. Photo: KGO-TV/ABC7 via Mercury News. Image may be subject to copyright.

The latest spill, a blackish filthy brown slick of bunker fuel, covered a 250-meter by  4-km stretch of San Francisco Bay on Friday, caused by a “refueling mishap” between an oil tanker, Dubai Star, and a service barge alongside, the U.S. Coast Guard reported.

The slick has not reached land and is in a narrow band because there is little wind and much of it may burn off amid warm weather, giving clean-up crews the upper hand in containing it, Coast Guard Captain Paul Gugg told reporters at a press conference.

“The weather is very cooperative. We’re all over it.” Gugg said.

Gugg said the scope of the contamination does not compare to the massive spill in 2007 of fuel oil from another tanker in the San Francisco Bay that spread across its shores and killed thousand of birds.

However,  Gugg didn’t say how much bunker fuel had spilled into the bay.

The spill comes eight days before the two-year anniversary of the vessel Cosco Busan striking the Bay Bridge in dense fog, ripping open its hull and spilling more than 53,000 gallons of fuel oil that fouled much of the shoreline along the well-known California waterway.

The Busan spill killed more than 2,500 birds and deposited oil on 200 miles of coastline, Pacific Environment was quoted as saying.

Meanwhile,

The unscrupulous oil giant BP has been fined $87 million for failing to remove safety hazards at its massive Texas City refinery, the 3rd largest in the US, where an explosion in 2005 killed 15 workers and injured 180 others.  The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) cited 270 violations at the oil refinery, officials said.

In 2005, BP was fined $21.3 million and ordered to repair hazards at their refinery, but it didn’t

“Lawyers acting for victims of the disaster suggested that the renewed action could put BP in breach of a plea agreement two years ago in which it pleaded guilty to a single felony and paid $373m to settle a string of criminal charges.” UK’s Guardian reported.

Related Links:

Additional Links:

More Links:

Posted in big oil, bird sanctuaries, Cosco Busan, Earthquakes, marine sanctuaries, oil spill, San Francisco Bay | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »

Chevron should pay $27 billion in compensation

Posted by feww on November 27, 2008

Expert estimates cost of oil giant’s environmental damage in Ecuador at $27billion

The oil company Chevron Corp should pay $27 billion in compensation for environmental damage it caused in Ecuador, an expert geologist says.


Antiwar protesters demonstrate outside Chevron Corp headquarters. Source

In a 1990s lawsuit brought against Texaco, which Chevron acquired in 2001, the farmers and indigenous groups in Ecuador contend that the company polluted the forest and damaged their health by dumping about 70 million cubic meters of contaminated water over two decades between 1972 and 1992.

Chevron dismisses the claim arguing that the independent damage report “contains fabricated and erroneous evidence,” and that Texaco was released from any liability because it paid $40 million for an environmental cleanup in the 1990s. Chevron also blames state oil company Petroecuador for most of the pollution.

A final ruling on the case is expected in 2009.

Related News Links:

Chevron’s Environmental record [from Wikipedia]

From 1965 to 1993, Texaco (acquired by Chevron in 2001) participated in a consortium to develop the Lago Agrio oil field in Ecuador. It has been accused of extensive environmental damage from these operations, and faces legal claims from both private plaintiffs and the government of Ecuador. The case has been widely publicized by environmental activists. Chevron claims that it is being unfairly targeted as a deep pocket defendant, when the actual responsibility lies with the government and its national oil company.

Chevron’s activities in Richmond, California have been the subject of ongoing controversy. The project houses over 11 million pounds of toxic materials and has been responsible for over 304 accidents.[11] For illegally bypassing wastewater treatments and failing to notify the public about toxic releases, Chevron’s Richmond refineries were forced to pay $540,000 in 1998.[12] Overall, Chevron is listed as potentially responsible for ninety-five Superfund sites—locations for which the EPA has earmarked funds for cleanup.[13] In October, 2003, the state of New Hampshire sued Chevron and other oil companies for using MTBE, a gasoline additive that the attorney general claimed polluted much of the state’s water supply.[14]

Chevron’s African operations have also been criticized as environmentally unsound.[15] In 2002, Angola became the first African nation ever to fine a major multinational corporation operating in its own waters when it demanded 2 million dollars in compensation for oil spills allegedly caused by Chevron’s poor maintenance.[16]

On October 16, 2003, Chevron U.S.A. Inc. resolved a Clean Air Act settlement, which reduced harmful air emissions by about 10,000 tons a year.[17] In San Francisco, Chevron was filed by a consent decree to spend almost $275 million to install and utilize innovative technology to reduce nitrogen and sulfur dioxide emissions at its refineries.[18] After violating the Clean Air Act at an offline loading terminal in El Segundo, California, Chevron paid a $6 million penalty as well as $1 million More…

Posted in Chevron lawsuit, Climate Change, ecuador, environment, Richard Cabrera | Tagged: , , , , | 8 Comments »

King of the Oil Beasts: In Petroleum We trust!

Posted by feww on May 10, 2008

Will a single company have a monopoly on 80 percent of “economically recoverable” global oil reserves?

Will the price of a barrel of oil exceed $240, or even $4,000?

Will the current monetary system be of no value soon?


In Petroleum We Trust (Gas coupon printed in 1973 oil crisis)

See Main Entry:

In Petroleum We Trust!

Related Links:

<!>

Posted in energy, environment, food, Global Warming, health, politics | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »