billvon 3,131 #1 August 24, 2017 A recent study published in IOP Science confirms what many have suspected. Exxon knew that climate change was real and that it was caused by human emissions, but intentionally misled the public by printing public ads casting doubt on the science - science that was confirmed by their own scientists. From the article: ". . . accounting for expressions of reasonable doubt, 83% of [Exxon's] peer-reviewed papers and 80% of internal documents acknowledge that climate change is real and human-caused, yet only 12% of advertorials do so, with 81% instead expressing doubt. We conclude that ExxonMobil contributed to advancing climate science—by way of its scientists' academic publications—but promoted doubt about it in advertorials. Given this discrepancy, we conclude that ExxonMobil misled the public. " http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa815f Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
winsor 236 #2 August 25, 2017 It's a common practice across the board. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nolhtairt 0 #3 August 25, 2017 I know it really doesn't make any difference, but I quit buying Exxon gas after the Valdez accident. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #4 August 25, 2017 Oh a climate study from a biologist and a chemist funded by the B Macfie Family Foundation. Dr. G Bryant Macfie is a medical doctor and a known climate sceptic. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Phil1111 1,193 #5 August 25, 2017 nolhtairtI know it really doesn't make any difference, but I quit buying Exxon gas after the Valdez accident. I agree it doesn't make any difference, but BP's Deepwater Horizon negligence was worse. One drunken captain isn't the same as systematic disregard for safety in the deep-water environment. Large oil companies calculate risk with little premium on the environment. Nigeria oil operations by multinationals is the best example. Bribes, kickbacks, spills, dumping of contaminated materials are all part and parcel of operations. I don't have anything against them. People need oil and energy. But for the largest companies everything is calculated and factored into risk. The environment is a political responsibility and a marketing/PR sideline. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wolfriverjoe 1,523 #6 August 25, 2017 No, you didn't. You may have stopped buying from Exxon franchise retailers, but the idea that you haven't purchased any gasoline refined by Exxon, or made from oil extracted by Exxon is a bit far fetched. Oil and oil products are interchanged, mixed, and bought and resold so much that trying to get any sort of 'original source' is very difficult."There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lawndarter 3 #7 August 25, 2017 Phil1111***One drunken captain isn't the same as systematic disregard for safety in the deep-water environment. I do enjoy the persistence of this myth. The Captain wasn't even on the bridge at the time, and a search of the vessel found two bottles of beer. More to the point about boycotts, boycotting a retailer of a fungible commodity is pointless, because you have no idea when you buy gasoline where it actually came from. Neither, in most cases, does the retailer. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DJL 235 #8 August 25, 2017 wolfriverjoeNo, you didn't. You may have stopped buying from Exxon franchise retailers, but the idea that you haven't purchased any gasoline refined by Exxon, or made from oil extracted by Exxon is a bit far fetched. Oil and oil products are interchanged, mixed, and bought and resold so much that trying to get any sort of 'original source' is very difficult. This is correct, there's no telling where two drops from the same well will end up as there are various markets between drill and gas pump."I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Phil1111 1,193 #9 August 25, 2017 The captain was drinking and smelled of alcohol immediately prior to departure. Only one officer was on the bridge at the time of grounding and fatigue was blamed in part for the accident. Two officers where required to be on the bridge according to company policy. The Exxon Valdez departed at 9:21, Hazelwood left the bridge for about an hour, returned, then left the bridge again at 11:53 and the collision occurred at 12:04. Less than 21/2 hours after departure. So Hazelwood left a tired third mate in charge only 21/2 hours after casting off when the tanker was transiting the most difficult part of the entire trip. Review of accident: http://www.evostc.state.ak.us/index.cfm?FA=facts.details Hazelwood spent most of the day conducting ship's business, shopping and, according to testimony before the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), drinking alcoholic beverages with the other ship's officers in at least two Valdez bars. Testimony indicated Hazelwood drank nonalcoholic beverages that day at lunch, a number of alcoholic drinks late that afternoon while relaxing in a Valdez bar, and at least one more drink at a bar while the party waited for pizza to take with them back to the ship.... A ship's agent who met with Hazelwood after he got back on the ship said it appeared the captain may have been drinking because his eyes were watery, but she did not smell alcohol on his breath. Ship's pilot Murphy, however, later indicated that he did detect the odor of alcohol on Hazelwood's breath. "Until the Exxon Valdez piled onto Bligh Reef, the system designed to carry 2 million barrels of North Slope oil to West Coast and Gulf Coast markets daily had worked perhaps too well. At least partly because of the success of the Valdez tanker trade, a general complacency had come to permeate the operation and oversight of the entire system... Industry's insistence on regulating the Valdez tanker trade its own way, and government's incremental accession to industry pressure, had produced a disastrous failure of the system" http://www.evostc.state.ak.us/index.cfm?FA=facts.details Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 905 #10 August 25, 2017 I don't buy BP gas because they have the opposite pump handle colors than the established ones. I buy a lot of diesel. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gowlerk 2,283 #11 August 25, 2017 normiss I don't buy BP gas because they have the opposite pump handle colors than the established ones. I buy a lot of diesel. I own shares in both BP and Exxon. I don't buy fuel from either of them. I buy from my local Co-op. They send me a rebate cheque yearly. When I'm at work I buy diesel from the same place as most other truckers. Pilot/Flying J. I have no idea who refines it.Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,609 #12 August 25, 2017 Phil1111One drunken captain isn't the same as systematic disregard for safety in the deep-water environment.... "Until the Exxon Valdez piled onto Bligh Reef, the system designed to carry 2 million barrels of North Slope oil to West Coast and Gulf Coast markets daily had worked perhaps too well. At least partly because of the success of the Valdez tanker trade, a general complacency had come to permeate the operation and oversight of the entire system... Industry's insistence on regulating the Valdez tanker trade its own way, and government's incremental accession to industry pressure, had produced a disastrous failure of the system" http://www.evostc.state.ak.us/index.cfm?FA=facts.details What your link says, Phil, is that one drunken Captain was symptomatic of a systematic disregard for safety in the maritime environment. BP, Halliburton, Exxon... same shit different day. (And all examples of how the 'industry will regulate itself' argument is total bullshit)Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Phil1111 1,193 #13 August 26, 2017 I made a post here last year about the disregard for the environment by smaller fracking oil companies. The smaller ones are just as bad because dumping of chemicals and waste oil is common as well. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites