Exxon Lied, People Died. Or Overheated. Or Something.

Meanwhile, back on Shakedown Street:

Exxon Mobil Investigated for Possible Climate Change Lies by New York Attorney General

And why not? Politically, this can only be a winner in My Blue Heaven, reality notwithstanding. If I may step on my punchline, the NY State AG really ought to include Obama's Department of Energy in this investigation, because they, too, see oil, gas and coal in our future. Pressing on:

The New York attorney general has begun an investigation of Exxon Mobil to determine whether the company lied to the public about the risks of climate change or to investors about how such risks might hurt the oil business.

...

The investigation focuses on whether statements the company made to investors about climate risks as recently as this year were consistent with the company’s own long-running scientific research.

The people said the inquiry would include a period of at least a decade during which Exxon Mobil 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.

Well - I would need to know more before I could be confident of the Times' characterization implied in "outside groups that sought to undermine climate science". Are these groups challenging the underlying science by proposing different tests, different models and different statistical adjustments? That sounds sort of like science and the validation thereof, and proving such people veered into bad faith and that Exxon knew they had done so might be a real challenge. OK, maybe not to a jury of Upper West Siders.

Or are these groups that questioned the proposed policy responses developed in response to the science? That sounds like a legitimate political argument - Bjorn Lomborg, the Skeptical Environmentalist, has argued for years that climate change is just one of many problems afflicting primarily the Third World and that our resources would be better employed alleviating more pressing concerns.

The NY Attorney General's business model is the tobacco company settlements, but the Times mentions a few minor speed bumps on the road to a multi-billion dollar payday:

In the 1950s and ’60s, tobacco companies financed internal research showing tobacco to be harmful and addictive, but mounted a public campaign that said otherwise and helped fund scientific research later shown to be dubious. In 2006, the companies were found guilty of “a massive 50-year scheme to defraud the public.”

The history at Exxon Mobil appears to differ, in that the company published extensive research over decades that largely lined up with mainstream climatology. Thus, any potential fraud prosecution might depend on exactly how big a role company executives can be shown to have played in directing campaigns of climate denial, usually by libertarian-leaning political groups.

Left unmentioned - cigarette smoking is generally viewed as a presumably pleasurable choice, not a necessity (ask any nicotine addict!). One might argue that homes that heat, cars that move, and factories that hum are also merely pleasurable choices (those caves won't Occupy Themselves!) but few do.

So we ask again, what does "climate denial" mean relative to scientific and/or policy skepticism?

For several years, advocacy groups with expertise in financial analysis have been warning that fossil fuel companies might be overvalued in the stock market, since the need to limit climate change might require that much of their coal, oil and natural gas be left in the ground.

Well, sure, and maybe we should go long candles.

Exxon Mobil has been disclosing such [policy] risks in recent years, but whether those disclosures were sufficient has been a matter of public debate.

Last year, for example, the company warned investors of intensifying efforts by governments to limit emissions. “These requirements could make our products more expensive, lengthen project implementation times and reduce demand for hydrocarbons, as well as shift hydrocarbon demand toward relatively lower-carbon sources such as natural gas,” the company said at the time.

Anyone who has ever read any prospectus in which every imaginable risk (and quite a few unimaginable ones) are described is familiar with this genre. Or, if offering circulars aren't your light reading, watch any Sunday afternoon football game for the ads where the risks for various erectile dysfunction or blood sugar management medications are described. "If you collapse into unconsciousness contact your physician" - thanks for the tip!

But in another recent report, Exxon Mobil essentially ruled out the possibility that governments would adopt climate policies stringent enough to force it to leave its reserves in the ground, saying that rising population and global energy demand would prevent that. “Meeting these needs will require all economic energy sources, especially oil and natural gas,” it said.

This idea that governments won't force oil to be left in the ground sounds like a very sensible opinion on the likely intersection of political dithering, development of new technologies, and desired economic growth. Just as an extreme example, we are a long way from battery- or nuclear-powered airplanes, so hydrocarbons are likely to remain critical for that type of transportation.

But why ask me? Maybe in the course of investigating Exxon's failure to disclose the risk of a global government shutdown of their businesses the NY State AG could commence an investigation of Team Obama's Department of Energy. This chart is from their Annual Energy Outlook 2015, with projections of the US energy mix by source through 2040. The gist - hydrocarbons are here to stay (my emphasis below). Sue 'em:

Energy consumption by primary fuel

Total primary energy consumption grows in the AEO2015 Reference case by 8.6 quadrillion Btu (8.9%), from 97.1 quadrillion Btu in 2013 to 105.7 quadrillion Btu in 2040 (Figure 18). Most of the growth is in consumption of natural gas and renewable energy. Consumption of petroleum products across all sectors in 2040 is unchanged from 2013 levels...

Personally I am surprised we can't knock down coal a lot more - on the list of jobs I want to see saved, laying waste to hillsides or trudging deep underground to come up with coal and black lung ranks low. And the "growth" in renewables" in this chart seems comical. From the Executive Summary:

Renewables meet much of the growth in electricity demand

Renewable electricity generation in the AEO2015 Reference case increases by 72% from 2013 to 2040, accounting for more than one-third of new generation capacity. The renewable share of total generation grows from 13% in 2013 to 18% in 2040.

That is one subset of energy usage, electricity generation, so it does not include transportation, home heating, and other stuff which is no doubt explained elsewhere.

FULL DISCLOSURE: This is part of the Exxon Mobil risk disclosure from the prospectus linked by the NY Times. I like this:

Government and Political Factors

ExxonMobil’s results can be adversely affected by political or regulatory developments affecting our operations.

Access limitations. A number of countries limit access to their oil and gas resources, or may place resources off-limits from development altogether. Restrictions on foreign investment in the oil and gas sector tend to increase in times of high commodity prices, when national governments may have less need of outside sources of private capital. Many countries also restrict the import or export of certain products based on point of origin.

Restrictions on doing business. ExxonMobil is subject to laws and sanctions imposed by the U.S. or by other jurisdictions where we do business that may prohibit ExxonMobil or certain of its affiliates from doing business in certain countries, or restricting the kind of business that may be conducted. Such restrictions may provide a competitive advantage to competitors who may not be subject to comparable restrictions.

Lack of legal certainty. Some countries in which we do business lack well-developed legal systems, or have not yet adopted clear regulatory frameworks for oil and gas development. Lack of legal certainty exposes our operations to increased risk of adverse or unpredictable actions by government officials, and also makes it more difficult for us to enforce our contracts. In some cases these risks can be partially offset by agreements to arbitrate disputes in an international forum, but the adequacy of this remedy may still depend on the local legal system to enforce an award.

 

Regulatory and litigation risks. Even in countries with well-developed legal systems where ExxonMobil does business, we remain exposed to changes in law (including changes that result from international treaties and accords) that could adversely affect our results, such as:

  

 

·	increases in taxes or government royalty rates (including retroactive claims);
·	price controls;
·	changes in environmental regulations or other laws that increase our cost of compliance or reduce or delay available business opportunities (including changes in laws related to offshore drilling operations, water use, or hydraulic fracturing);
·	adoption of regulations mandating the use of alternative fuels or uncompetitive fuel components;
·	adoption of government payment transparency regulations that could require us to disclose competitively sensitive commercial information, or that could cause us to violate the non-disclosure laws of other countries; and
·	government actions to cancel contracts, re-denominate the official currency, renounce or default on obligations, renegotiate terms unilaterally, or expropriate assets.

 

Legal remedies available to compensate us for expropriation or other takings may be inadequate.

 

We also may be adversely affected by the outcome of litigation, especially in countries such as the United States in which very large and unpredictable punitive damage awards may occur, or by government enforcement proceedings alleging non-compliance with applicable laws or regulations.

 

Security concerns. Successful operation of particular facilities or projects may be disrupted by civil unrest, acts of sabotage or terrorism, and other local security concerns. Such concerns may require us to incur greater costs for security or to shut down operations for a period of time.

 

Climate change and greenhouse gas restrictions. Due to concern over the risk of climate change, a number of countries have adopted, or are considering the adoption of, regulatory frameworks to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. These include adoption of cap and trade regimes, carbon taxes, restrictive permitting, increased efficiency standards, and incentives or mandates for renewable energy. These requirements could make our products more expensive, lengthen project implementation times, and reduce demand for hydrocarbons, as well as shift hydrocarbon demand toward relatively lower-carbon sources such as natural gas. Current and pending greenhouse gas regulations may also increase our compliance costs, such as for monitoring or sequestering emissions.

 

Government sponsorship of alternative energy. Many governments are providing tax advantages and other subsidies to support alternative energy sources or are mandating the use of specific fuels or technologies. Governments are also promoting research into new technologies to reduce the cost and increase the scalability of alternative energy sources. We are conducting our own research efforts into alternative energy, such as through sponsorship of the Global Climate and Energy Project at Stanford University and research into liquid products from algae and biomass that can be further converted to transportation fuels. Our future results may depend in part on the success of our research efforts and on our ability to adapt and apply the strengths of our current business model to providing the energy products of the future in a cost-competitive manner. See “Management Effectiveness” below.

 

Comments

[Jack is Back!]

Just gave Ben another donation and an email to fight back twice as hard and with gloves off including legal action. If they do I have more to give. If they rollover then I am done giving to any GOP candidate. And true to his form as a jerk and school yard bully Trump is on the attack - on Ben not Politico.

How can any of you folks here stand that asshole.

Every candidate should come out and support Carson now because if they don't they are next.

[narciso]

Stay puft still can't get a clue.

[clarice]

™ yours is a particularly outstanding post today.

[Threadkiller]

Trump is merely doing what Fox claimed to be doing after the first debate flap.

He is preparing candidates for the Dem onslaught.

[jimmyk]

Every candidate should come out and support Carson now because if they don't they are next.

Precisely. I thought at the last debate they'd figured this out. I'll bet Cruz at least defends Carson.

[James D.]

So all the photos and transcripts from the Greg Hardy case got published today. I wonder if Jerry Jones will still be calling him a "leader" who has the respect of all his teammates this weekend?

Also, I will bet cash money that it's like Ray Rice all over again - Goodell had access to all of it, and thought/hoped it would never come out and the issue would just go away quietly.

[maryrose]

Hillary lies and the media yawn
According to Ed Rollins Hil's lying is already baked in the cake

[Jack is Back!]

TK,

So libeling someone and lynching a black conservative in public is the Dem strategy? Gosh, I hope so.

Don't know where Politico is located but I truly wish a Charlie Hebdo on them. I do.

[jimmyk]

So libeling someone and lynching a black conservative in public is the Dem strategy? Gosh, I hope so.

Nothing new there, as Clarence Thomas knows. They do the same with conservative women. For some reason blacks still vote D and many women still think the Ds really care about them.

[sbw]

Expect Politico to find a pubic hair in the autoclave.

[narciso]

Still covering for red queen, like that fulsome bio from some years ago.

[Jack is Back!]

jimmyk,

This is different. This is a news orgainzation (again I use the term very liberally) that has purposefully decided to lie and present a story that is a total fabrication in order to destroy a potential candidate for POTUS who is a threat to the criminal organization knows as the Democrat party and the windbag BS artist they supprt - Trump.

No socieal media back in Thomas' day plus he survived, thank God. Cain had some smoke, not necessarily burning embers but not the same as this. Anyone who has ever read Gifted Hands knows that Politico and all the rest who buy their fabrication are reaching and co-conspirators in the destruction of Carson's credibility and stature. A pox on all their houses and especially Trumps.

He can be a stand up guy and come to Ben's defense but he can't because he probably doesn't even want to know about a guy who earned his way to credibility instead of inheriting and then stealing it from others.

Over to you, TK.

[jimmyk]

I think Trump's mistaken if he thinks jumping on Carson is a good idea. It might get him some brownie points on the left, but I don't think Republican voters will look kindly on this, especially if Carson vigorously and successfully defends himself. It would be a good lesson for Rs if this ends up hurting Trump more than Carson.

[jimmyk]

And JiB, I'm not seeing much of a difference between this and Clarence Thomas. Yeah, Anita Hill started it, but the MSM ran with it and treated her like royalty.

[Threadkiller]

Is CNN the same news organization that put Candy Crawley on the debate stage?

[FTL]

Candy Crawley

Heh. Candy "Creepy" Crawly.

Garden slug with arms and legs. Remember how quick that little jugeared punkass faggot ran to hide behind her muumuu?

[pagar a bacon, ham and sausage supporter]

"Does anyone seriously think this is practical?

Does anyone seriously think holding Tesla stock is a long term play?

IMO, who ever said "there is one born every minute"

http://money.cnn.com/2015/11/03/investing/tesla-earnings/

"Tesla's shares climb after earnings report"

[Miss Marple 2]

Of all things, Jeb Bush was on with Cavuto and said if it came down to going with Politico or Ben Carson, he was going with Ben Carson.

One point for the hapless Jeb, who at least can stand up for what's right in this case.

Five demerits to Trump who has misinterpreted both his popularity and Ben's.

Unless he revises his statement and apologizes, I will be withdrawing any possible support of Trump. I will support Carson. Cruz, or Fiorina.

(For me this is all academic since I don't vote in our primary until May.)

[Beasts of England]

Trump is only hurting himself by joining in the attacks on Carson. Bad form for a variety of reasons and certainly myopic. I understand substantive policy disagreements, but the rest is detrimental.

[Beasts of England]

Not sure why I comment anymore. I should just chime in occasionally to say that I agree with Miss Marple. :)

[GMax]

Isnt time for some pre game lubricating beverages Beasts? Less than 4 hours to kick off right? My next door neighbor cajun, was in full froth last evening!

[Beasts of England]

I hope the game is tomorrow night, but I've been lubricating on the lake a little bit already today, GMax. lol

[glasater]

GMax,

Hydrogen with water vapor as exhaust will one day power vehicle

Went to a seminar years ago on auto fuels and the guy said until the engineers figured out how to keep those vehicles turning into mini Hindenburgs rolling down the highways it would never happen.

[Tom Bowler]

Hydrogen with water vapor as exhaust will one day power vehicle

So, isn't water vapor the most plentiful of the greenhouse gases? So I don't get why the Global Warmists aren't all up in arms over the prospect of hydrogen fuel cells adding water vapor to the atmosphere. It might become water! Oceans will rise!

But then I once read that climate scientists were unsure about the effects of clouds on climate change. How can anybody say they can predict climate apocalypse without knowing the effects of clouds? Maybe they've figured it out by now, but somehow I doubt it.

[GMax]

I am quite sure that the service academies just like all Universities, are always and forever on the high alert for minority candidates that can not just fill and admission slot, but rather can hold their own and graduate with honor in their class. Its an extremely sought after subset of the economy due to all the blather about diversity on campus.

I would believe any representative of an Academy would tell a high performing minority student that a slot with a full ride is yours for the asking. Or maybe, just say the word and we will start ringing the phones of congressmen we know, this afternoon.

[GMax]

Damn today is not Saturday? You know, everyday is a holiday for us retired guys. LOL

I should know not to trust a Cajun...

[FTL]

How can anybody say they can predict climate apocalypse without knowing the effects of clouds?

It took about twelve years before the free market could figure out how to make a low flow toilet that could reliably flush to adapt to the one-size-fits-all water conservation demand imposed by the overlords in DC. Under the ridiculous constraint, this was a "better mousetrap" holy grail.

That was in an effectively closed system where designers wielded control over surface contours, u-bend design, and introducing water into the bowl. Thermal effects were not even a consideration--it was strictly fluid dynamics.

Anyone selling the idea that he can model the earth's weather is a geek who didn't get swirlied enough times growing up.

With apologies to Hank, Sr: "I'll rub his nose in the bowl three times, but Lord, he's only coming up twice."

[Captain Hate on the iPad]

Speaking of Greg Hardy and Ray Rice, if video capabilities had always been as they are now, Jim Brown's career would be very different. As it is, the NFL network is playing with fire by featuring him so prominently.

[boatbuilder, Esq., Lord of All He Surveys]

Wild Bill: If I understand TM correctly, the claim in the lawsuit is not that Exxon "denied" "climate" (I will never understand how the term ever came to pass) but that they failed to fully and properly inform their shareholders of the risk that the government would go completely bonkers. That saves the prosecution the trouble of "proving" "climate change" which as Steyn and others, including but not limited to those who measure and report on the actual weather, have demonstrated to be a tough nut.

[boatbuilder, Esq., Lord of All He Surveys]

The Boston radio folks (WEEI) and my local Hartford guys (WTIC) are all over Jerry Jones for trotting out his own daughter to prop up the Hardy signing. The man has issues.

[Jane]

Stephanie,

I forgot to tell you I did see Thor, and fell in love.

[I agree.]

Heh, Beasts, I'm waiting for the next buy signal.

[It's all about the albedo.]

Tom B, an old but goodie of mine, which I roll out over the horizon when the mood strikes me:

I think I've never heard so loud
The quiet message in a cloud.

[Hup, two, aw fergit it, hayfoot, strawfoot.]

Hmmm, Seventh Day Adventists get drafted into armies. Full scholarship ain't enuff.

Hope this takes care of his military and foreign policy credentials. Jeez, what if he had gone to West Point? Just think where we and he would be now!

Plus, great advertising for the book, as if of those who ought to read it will read it.

[Stephanie]

Thanks, Jane! He is a cutie. Full of piss and vinegar around our other dogs. He's not quite 2 1/2 lbs and he's gonna stay a little 'un.

He's so proud of himself today for learning how to jump from the leather sofa to the ottoman that he just goes back and forth for the fun of it and puffs his little chest out so proud of himself.

[The Imp]

Yi, arrgh, san, seur, whoops :)