Exxon Charged With Illegally Dumping Waste In Pennsylvania

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Exxon Charged With Illegally Dumping Waste In Pennsylvania

Posted by samzenpus on Wednesday September 11, 2013 @01:51PM from the looks-like-you-spilled-something dept.

Exxon has been charged with illegally dumping over 50,000 gallons of wastewater at a shale-gas drilling site in Pennsylvania. From the article: 'Exxon unit XTO Energy Inc. discharged the water from waste tanks at the Marquandt well site in Lycoming County in 2010, according to a statement on the website of Pennsylvania’s attorney general. The pollution was found during an unannounced visit by the state’s Department of Environmental Protection. The inspectors discovered a plug removed from a tank, allowing the wastewater to run onto the ground, polluting a nearby stream. XTO was ordered to remove 3,000 tons of soil to clean up the area. Wastewater discharged from natural-gas wells can contain chlorides, barium, strontium and aluminum, the attorney general’s statement showed. “Criminal charges are unwarranted and legally baseless,” the XTO unit said yesterday in a statement posted on its website. “There was no intentional, reckless or negligent misconduct by XTO.”'

246 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Can we have someone go to jail now, please? by eksith · 2013-09-11 13:55 · Score: 5, Insightful

I'm getting sick of these companies getting away with fines or other slaps on the wrist. I want to see at least some of these thugs in the upper tiers behind bars!

--
If computers were people, I'd be a misanthrope.
1. Re:Can we have someone go to jail now, please? by ackthpt · 2013-09-11 14:02 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  I'm getting sick of these companies getting away with fines or other slaps on the wrist. I want to see at least some of these thugs in the upper tiers behind bars!
  Mayhap a trail of emails or (shudder) NSA monitored phones can catch them.
  
  Wastewater discharged from natural-gas wells can contain chlorides, barium, strontium and aluminum,
  
  Sounds like the average energy drink...
  
  --
  
  A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
2. Re:Can we have someone go to jail now, please? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 14:08 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  I want companies to be executed for crimes that would warrant it for us. That would require shareholders to have broad powers to correct misconduct since they will lose everything if they're not fixing them.
  You convict them, lock up all management and take everything needed to clean up their mess and then revoke their right to run as a business. If the shareholders are culpable you keep 80% of the sale. They can spin and get papercuts on their share paperwork.
  Those chemicals are an assault with a deadly weapon of mass destruction. They should be put up against the wall and shot.
3. Re:Can we have someone go to jail now, please? by Jah-Wren+Ryel · 2013-09-11 14:20 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  I want to see at least some of these thugs in the upper tiers behind bars!
  I'd be happy to see them eat their own dog food. Put a GPS ankle-bracelet on them and make them live on the polluted land and drink the polluted water.
  
  --
  When information is power, privacy is freedom.
4. Re:Can we have someone go to jail now, please? by MightyYar · 2013-09-11 14:40 · Score: 1
  
  I certainly agree that I'd like criminal charges applied to decision makers at companies like this. BUT...
  50,000 gallons isn't that much water. It was a 10,000 gallon-per-day spill. That's garden-hose territory. The fact that they were made to clean it up and pay fines seems reasonable to me - I'm not sure jail time is warranted here.
  
  --
  W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
5. Re:Can we have someone go to jail now, please? by jythie · 2013-09-11 14:42 · Score: 2
  
  Nah, profits define morality, so by the NSA's standards they are doing nothing wrong. Now if they were polluting for free they might get in trouble.
6. Re:Can we have someone go to jail now, please? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 14:43 · Score: 0
  
  for this to happen, you probably need to make illegal political contributions by companies
7. Re:Can we have someone go to jail now, please? by nicobigsby · 2013-09-11 14:47 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  The problem is the goddamn double standard. Spray a few ounces of spray paint on a wall, and you get criminal charges pressed against you. Hell there was a guy arrested for writing in chalk outside Bank of America, on the sidewalks... wash away chalk. But dump 50k gallons of polluted water into the wild and it's all NBD.
8. Re:Can we have someone go to jail now, please? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 14:53 · Score: 0
  
  50,000 gallons isn't that much water. It was a 10,000 gallon-per-day spill. That's garden-hose territory. The fact that they were made to clean it up and pay fines seems reasonable to me - I'm not sure jail time is warranted here.
  Depends all on what was in it... oil for example can contaminate drinking water at 1 ppm. So one gallon of oil can make one million gallons of water undrinkable. Not saying oil was in it, just as an example. 50,000 gallons of polluted water could mix with 100 million gallons of clean water to make 100,050,000 gallons of polluted water.
9. Re:Can we have someone go to jail now, please? by MightyYar · 2013-09-11 15:03 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  But they didn't deliberately deface anything - they left a plug out of a tank, which leaked contaminated water at a rate which may not have seemed significant. They seem to have made good on the cleanup. Intent matters - that's why we have murder and manslaughter.
  
  --
  W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
10. Re:Can we have someone go to jail now, please? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 15:06 · Score: 0
  
  They have also gotten away with not showing a complete list of every chemical they use in there fracking process, claiming it is a "trade secret". How f'in secretive can it be when every drilling company is fracking? This was something Congress yet again failed at, why? because the companies are buying off politicians.. the DEP is a defunct org to begin with, and someone or several people/complaints, if not that the DEP, or someone was testing the water, and found levels of chemicals that shouldn't have been there.
  I can promise you companies have been doing this, despite "fracking waste water recycling" businesses in the state. Local papers ran an article over one company dumping the waste water, and the DEP still has yet to do anything about it.
11. Re:Can we have someone go to jail now, please? by sconeu · 2013-09-11 15:12 · Score: 1, Troll
  
  Agreed. After all, "Corporations are people too, my friend."
  
  --
  General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
12. Re:Can we have someone go to jail now, please? by ireallyhateslashdot · 2013-09-11 15:21 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  And also why we have such a thing as "negligence". They apparently were negligent; either in their maintenance protocols, equipment checks, or, well, making sure that contaminated waste is securely and safely managed. I would say that that warrants a criminal charge, but that's just my opinion.
13. Re:Can we have someone go to jail now, please? by haruchai · 2013-09-11 15:39 · Score: 0
  
  Well, Mitt Romney said it. It must be true. And he supports the death penalty.
  
  --
  Pain is merely failure leaving the body
14. Re:Can we have someone go to jail now, please? by Ol+Olsoc · 2013-09-11 15:47 · Score: 2
  
  50,000 gallons isn't that much water. It was a 10,000 gallon-per-day spill. That's garden-hose territory. The fact that they were made to clean it up and pay fines seems reasonable to me - I'm not sure jail time is warranted here.
  Wouldn't that sort of depend on what was in the water? That's 6 gallons per minute. It is a bit of a witches brew they are spewing in my backyard. Gasoline? Sulfuric acid? You'd support that being dumped in your backyard?
  The real blast from TFA is:
  “Charging XTO under these circumstances could discourage good environmental practices,”
  We've only been told for years that we must punish all offenders heavily.
  It only follows that if we remove all environmental restrictions, no fines, no punishment, it will encourage the energy companies to be unrelenting in their pursuit of no spills ever.
  Personally, I think if the Energy company Executive board, and the politicians that they own, and their families were forced to drink the water they are dumping, and not stop drinking it until they dispose of 50 thousand gallons of it, we will see the problem disappear in no time, never to be repeated.
  Because it doesn't affect them right now. They don't live there. The people and animals who live in these regions don't mean anything to them.
  But perhaps they should be concerned. Underlying the Marcellus shale is a deeper gas bearing shale - the Utica. The Utica extends into areas that are populated, some with fairly wealthy people who might take umbrage at pads set up in their neighborhood.
  It will happen. I'm not anti-gas extraction. But I can hardly wait until it becomes a problem for people who dismiss it as inconsequential at this moment. People do tend to care a little more when it is their ox getting gored.
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
15. Re:Can we have someone go to jail now, please? by Ol+Olsoc · 2013-09-11 15:49 · Score: 2
  
  They seem to have made good on the cleanup. Intent matters - that's why we have murder and manslaughter.
  Then again, people do go to jail for manslaughter as well as murder.
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
16. Re:Can we have someone go to jail now, please? by nicobigsby · 2013-09-11 16:00 · Score: 1
  
  Guess I should have read the article more closely. Originally, the phrasing and headline (sigh, sensationalization anybody?) made it seem like it was intentional. Seems like it wasn't which means my previous comment was made out of ignorance. Sorry, I will try to be better at this.
17. Re:Can we have someone go to jail now, please? by nicobigsby · 2013-09-11 16:03 · Score: 1
  
  This didn't result in the loss of human life. Who knows what might have happened? The plug could have come undone. My father manages the (clean) water for a property and even a small plug left unfastened can leak insane amounts of water in a short period of time.
18. Re:Can we have someone go to jail now, please? by I'm+New+Around+Here · 2013-09-11 16:35 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I wonder who came up with that specific 'fact', that oil is a contaminant right at 'one part per million'. It certainly makes the "one gallon of oil can make one million gallons of water undrinkable" line sound horrible, but what is the basis in fact?
  Is 0.8 ppm safe, but 1.0 deadly? What about 0.6 ppm? Is water contaminated when one gallon of oil spills into a 2-million gallon tank? For that matter, oil floats on top of water, so how does the lower 99% get contaminated? If somehow a gallon of oil was mixed into water in such a way that every molecule of oil was separate, and each molecule floated 7 inches from any other one, how many gallons would be contaminated by that oil?
  
  --
  If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
19. Re:Can we have someone go to jail now, please? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 16:58 · Score: 0
  
  It's no surprise. Republicans drink Big Oil's jizz by the gallon every single day.
20. Re:Can we have someone go to jail now, please? by khallow · 2013-09-11 17:02 · Score: 1
  
  We've only been told for years that we must punish all offenders heavily.
  Told by idiots. What's your take on the War on Drugs? All drug carrying offenders must be punished heavily, amirite?
21. Re:Can we have someone go to jail now, please? by khallow · 2013-09-11 17:04 · Score: 1
  
  They have also gotten away with not showing a complete list of every chemical they use in there fracking process, claiming it is a "trade secret". How f'in secretive can it be when every drilling company is fracking?
  In other words, that's what you'd expect of actual trade secrets of considerable value. If I had a business with no potential competitors, then trade secrets wouldn't have much value.
22. Re: Can we have someone go to jail now, please? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 17:36 · Score: 0
  
  There's a double standard, right? Punish the poor, let the corporations off.
23. Re: Can we have someone go to jail now, please? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 17:42 · Score: 0
  
  Like open source has no potential competitors?
24. Re:Can we have someone go to jail now, please? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 17:48 · Score: 0
  
  Corporations are people when regarding the law, except when actually having to face jailtime and actual responsibility.
  People have short lifespans and are prone to serious illnesses, so are easy to exterminate once we've given them the weapons to do it with.
25. Re:Can we have someone go to jail now, please? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 20:31 · Score: 0
  
  BP made good on their 'cleanup' but they aren't allegedly an 'American' company were they?
26. Re:Can we have someone go to jail now, please? by TapeCutter · 2013-09-11 21:19 · Score: 2
  
  There's a big difference between negligence and criminal negligence. Years ago my foreman was in a hurry and turned the bubbler too high on a rubber latex storage tank, when the factory owner drove in two hours later the rear car park was covered in several tons of liquid rubber latex. The foreman was certainly negligent since he took a shortcut (I saw him do it) but rather than owning up to his mistake the coward lied and convinced the owner it was my fault with the result that I got the sack before I knew why! Having said that, nothing he did means he was criminally negligent, like many blue collar workers he was simply overworked and underpaid, he lied because he had a family to look our for, I was a disinterested 18yro kid who was almost pleased to be sacked..
  
  The heavy hand of criminal law should be reserved for cases where it is beyond reasonable doubt it was deliberate, or when the company refuses to rectify the problem. Finding someone to blame and throwing them into jail is not working for the US, to the extent that even as a die hard "greenie" from the 70's I would not want to see a "war on pollution". The good news here is that the EPA are getting the problem fixed in a timely manner at the companies expense, which after all is the crux of the matter.
  
  --
  And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
27. Re:Can we have someone go to jail now, please? by TapeCutter · 2013-09-11 21:47 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  It means that 1.0 or below is considered safe to consume, it says nothing about what level makes you sick/dead just that anything above 1.0 is not considered safe.
  
  For that matter, oil floats on top of water, so how does the lower 99% get contaminated?
  Why do so many geeks have so much trouble comprehending simple guidelines? The water at the bottom is below 1.0ppm and therefore safe to consume, matter of fact many Aussies put some oil in their water tank to prevent mosquito wrigglers (the little fuckers can't come up to breath when there's a layer of oil on top). Note that not all oils float nice and neatly on the top of the water, heavy crude oil has a tendency to form tarballs and sink to the bottom, given a large enough body of still water, light oil will spread out to an unbroken film exactly one molecule thick.
  
  --
  And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
28. Re:Can we have someone go to jail now, please? by daem0n1x · 2013-09-11 22:00 · Score: 1
  
  50,000 gallons isn't that much water. It was a 10,000 gallon-per-day spill. That's garden-hose territory.
  I'd like to see your garden. Looks like it may make a great football field.
29. Re:Can we have someone go to jail now, please? by Inda · 2013-09-11 22:19 · Score: 2
  
  I'm also suprised some people cannot record numbers and plot graphs. It's all too easy to get right, I wonder why people question it.
  
  Take a thousand people, some drink 0.6ppm of contaminated water, some drink 1.0ppm, some drink pure water. Record the number of illnesses, plot the graphs with pretty colours. If the 1.0ppm drinkers are above the pure water plots, and they are getting ill, 1.0ppm is too much.
  
  Of course, that's simplified to the max, but the method is understandable.
  
  And, getting water to mix with oil is child-science. I use soap, or any other detergent. The result is called an emulsion.
  
  --
  This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
30. Re:Can we have someone go to jail now, please? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 22:25 · Score: 0
  
  Until fines are adjusted out of 'just the cost of doing business' range and into 'pack it up and go home' range nothing will change. We had a company here doing seismic testing for wells, they came to a county line or similar border where their permit for exploration was limited. The paperwork was in and likely would have given them the right permissions in a week or so, but the trucks were there now. They illegally explored and got fined as it was cheaper than sending the trucks home etc. Not as bad a straight dumping but very illustrative of the thought process.
31. Re:Can we have someone go to jail now, please? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 22:33 · Score: 0
  
  Sounds like the average energy drink...
  As far as contaminants go, those are all pretty benign, assuming stable species of Barium and Strontium. The Strontium would be of most concern.
32. Re:Can we have someone go to jail now, please? by sociocapitalist · 2013-09-11 22:49 · Score: 1
  
  But they didn't deliberately deface anything - they left a plug out of a tank, which leaked contaminated water at a rate which may not have seemed significant. They seem to have made good on the cleanup. Intent matters - that's why we have murder and manslaughter.
  It's still negligence, contrary to the AG's statement “There was no intentional, reckless or negligent misconduct by XTO.”'
  
  --
  blindly antisocialist = antisocial
33. Re:Can we have someone go to jail now, please? by WhatHump · 2013-09-11 22:54 · Score: 1
  
  Ok class, today's lesson is on the founding principals of the justice system. Please repeat after me: "When you are a corporation, you are innocent until you admit you are guilty. When you are a citizen, you are guilty - period".
  
  --
  "Could be worse...could be raining." Igor
34. Re: Can we have someone go to jail now, please? by khallow · 2013-09-11 23:55 · Score: 1
  
  Like open source has no potential competitors?
  Open source doesn't have trade secrets (being open and all) so it's not useful as any sort of analogy.
35. Re:Can we have someone go to jail now, please? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 23:59 · Score: 0
  
  The corporate 'Fsck you' is sufficient to distinguish between these analogous cases.
36. Re: Can we have someone go to jail now, please? by khallow · 2013-09-12 00:02 · Score: 1
  
  Who's being "let off" here? Harsh and arbitrary punishments for minor offense breeds contempt for law.
37. Re:Can we have someone go to jail now, please? by MightyYar · 2013-09-12 00:05 · Score: 1
  
  No, seriously. I think a garden hose is around 300 GPH, and this works out to 416 GPH. It's not that big of a flow and I could buy their claim that they didn't know they were leaking.
  
  --
  W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
38. Re:Can we have someone go to jail now, please? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-12 00:12 · Score: 0
  
  not going to happen in your lifetime...
39. Re:Can we have someone go to jail now, please? by MightyYar · 2013-09-12 00:19 · Score: 1
  
  Any human endeavor will involve mistakes. Sending some poor slob to jail for forgetting to put a plug in is not really justified IMHO. Sending his manager to jail for not double-checking is once removed from that. Sending his VP to jail starts to get even more absurd. The company needs to own up and make good, but jail wouldn't be very effective here.
  Note that my wife is a doctor, so I may have a skewed view of the tort system. I'd hate to see her go to jail for an inevitable mistake, or one by one of the staff she supervises. Everyone makes mistakes, and all man-made systems have flaws. You want a disincentive, to be sure, but ruining someone's life for an honest mistake seems heavy-handed.
  
  --
  W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
40. Re:Can we have someone go to jail now, please? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-12 00:29 · Score: 0
  
  What's your take on the War on Drugs?
  My take is that an individual introducing chemicals into his own property (his own body) has no relevance to TFS where, supposedly, a company is introducing chemicals to property that is not theirs
41. Re:Can we have someone go to jail now, please? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-12 00:37 · Score: 0
  
  I'll believe corporations are people when they start coming back from Afghanistan in body bags.
42. Re:Can we have someone go to jail now, please? by khallow · 2013-09-12 00:43 · Score: 1
  
  The relevance is that they're both cases of activities with minor consequences that someone thinks should be heavily punished, just because.
43. Re:Can we have someone go to jail now, please? by h4rr4r · 2013-09-12 00:50 · Score: 1
  
  If is is deliberate it is not negligence. That is the whole point. This leak was negligent but not intentional. Negligent is enough for criminal charges. Had the cap leaked from being cross threaded instead of totally left out, that would be accidental.
44. Re:Can we have someone go to jail now, please? by FireFury03 · 2013-09-12 00:51 · Score: 1
  
  I certainly agree that I'd like criminal charges applied to decision makers at companies like this. BUT...
  50,000 gallons isn't that much water. It was a 10,000 gallon-per-day spill. That's garden-hose territory. The fact that they were made to clean it up and pay fines seems reasonable to me - I'm not sure jail time is warranted here.
  I can't see how they can claim it is neither negligent nor deliberate - as far as I can see the only reason you wouldn't consider this to be negligent is if it was done intentionally.
  So whilst it may not be a serious spill, I would say that they need to be punished either for doing it deliberately (for which there is no excuse), or for trying to weasel out of it instead of just admitting that an accident had happened and cleaning it up.
  If it turned out to not be deliberate, and they didn't try to weasel out of their responsibilities then I might agree with you, but companies need to be punished if they try to avoid being held accountable for their own actions, even those actions that are accidents.
  
  --
  http://blog.nexusuk.org
45. Re:Can we have someone go to jail now, please? by h4rr4r · 2013-09-12 00:54 · Score: 1
  
  Bullshit, failure to have someone double check that sort of thing is negligence.
  Everyone makes mistakes, the problem is not bothering to plan for them. I saw a nurse fired when a doctor instructed her to cut a patient's facial hair with scissors instead of the correct tool, she ended up nicking some hoses. The nurse was in the wrong, the doctor was negligent. He instructed someone to use the wrong tool, knowing this might happen, just so he could get out of the office a little sooner that day. The patient was fine, no lawsuit ensued, but that changes nothing. The tort system goes very easy on doctors, look at those fellows who put fecal bacteria into brain cancer patients heads for the hell of it.
  There are honest mistakes and there is negligence. It rises to negligence when you don't bother to have a plan to deal with honest mistakes. Like maybe have someone inspect that shit once in awhile.
46. Re: Can we have someone go to jail now, please? by h4rr4r · 2013-09-12 00:58 · Score: 1
  
  The people who are paying insignificant fines, you know unlike the people who do years in jail for possessing trivial amount of plant matter. On the other hand if you are a baseball player you can mail yourself ounces of the stuff and pay a little fine. In both cases it is quite clear, harsh punishments are only for the poors.
47. Re:Can we have someone go to jail now, please? by RazorSharp · 2013-09-12 00:58 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, we don't put enough people behind bars here in America. . .
  Incarceration has few benefits and many drawbacks. It should be reserved for people who have genuinely proven themselves to be dangerous for society. "Throw 'em in jail" is a knee-jerk reaction and it's done more harm than good in the past. Examples such as alcohol prohibition and the 'war on drugs' are obvious.
  I would be that imposing prison time for offenses such as this would only make top-tier corporate culture even more corrupt. Once a person is already risking heavy jail time it makes them more willing to commit other offenses they normally may not. Such as the drug dealer who murders a known snitch. You set people up to reevaluate their risks/rewards, and they don't always view it the way the law would like them to. So while, 'throw 'em in jail' may sound nice and morally righteous, perhaps you should consider the unintended consequences of such legislation.
  
  --
  "From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
48. Re:Can we have someone go to jail now, please? by h4rr4r · 2013-09-12 01:00 · Score: 1
  
  Minor consequences?
  So you would be happy to replace all of your fluid intake with this liquid? Perhaps have this soil being removed exchanged for the topsoil on your property.
  If you want to drink the stuff fine by me, but don't expect that I want to drink it too.
49. Re:Can we have someone go to jail now, please? by h4rr4r · 2013-09-12 01:11 · Score: 1
  
  Or of someone with something to hide.
  If you are injecting stuff into the ground where it will leak onto other peoples property you should have a duty to disclose those substances to them.
50. Re:Can we have someone go to jail now, please? by MightyYar · 2013-09-12 01:17 · Score: 1
  
  They were held accountable. They had to remove soil and paid a fine. They are also being charged under environmental laws in the state of PA - I'm just not sure how jail time would help here. I tend to be anti-jail for nonviolent offenders, so maybe I'm just biased.
  
  --
  W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
51. Re:Can we have someone go to jail now, please? by MightyYar · 2013-09-12 01:18 · Score: 2
  
  They ARE being charged with criminal offenses:
  "XTO Energy Inc. is charged with five counts of unlawful conduct under the Clean Streams Law and three counts of unlawful conduct under the Solid Waste Management Act."
  It just doesn't involve jail.
  
  --
  W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
52. Re:Can we have someone go to jail now, please? by AJH16 · 2013-09-12 01:18 · Score: 1
  
  FUEL energy drink perhaps?
  
  --
  AJ Henderson
53. Re:Can we have someone go to jail now, please? by h4rr4r · 2013-09-12 01:24 · Score: 1
  
  Which means they might as well be civil offenses.
54. Re:Can we have someone go to jail now, please? by Politburo · 2013-09-12 01:31 · Score: 1
  
  Dunno about you, I would notice if my garden hose was on continuously for 5 days... and it's not spouting wastewater.
  
  They have a duty to operate at all times in accordance with good environmental practice. Leaving a tank open for 5 minutes, let alone 5 days, does not seem to meet that standard. This is not some paperwork violation. Pursuing the case criminally sends a very strong and imo correct message to operators.
55. Re:Can we have someone go to jail now, please? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-12 01:34 · Score: 0
  
  So am I correct to say that you think consequences are more important than whether somebody has violated somebody else's property?
56. Re:Can we have someone go to jail now, please? by Sure,+Not · 2013-09-12 02:12 · Score: 1
  
  Not doing things you know you should, like checking that you didn't leave the toxic waste on, is called negligence. If that negligence was intentional, e.g. "We need to save money, let's cut the toxic-waste-plug-checker budget.", then that intent was evil and the case is certainly criminal. Regardless, they cannot be trusted to store these chemicals, just as a drunk cannot be trusted to operate a backhoe. If their operation was smaller this would be debatable, but when you store enough of this stuff to fill a pond you have more stringent responsibilities like researching safer storage methods (one plug, really?! between the ground and poison?), and employing competent minds. If Exxon doesn't like these standards they can find another planet to poison, because their actions deeply effect all of us on a level that might someday, far in the future, confuse historians as to whether this was an accident or an offensive.
57. Re:Can we have someone go to jail now, please? by MightyYar · 2013-09-12 02:26 · Score: 1
  
  You don't seem to be aware that they are facing criminal charges.
  
  --
  W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
58. Re:Can we have someone go to jail now, please? by Sure,+Not · 2013-09-12 02:26 · Score: 1
  
  I see now there is a lot of confusion as to what makes an action criminal. Here's a breakdown: If the company refused to act, despite knowledge it should act, to prevent injury to person or property, and then that inaction brought the kind of mishap they knew could happen, then they are criminally negligent. So, my previous example could be more clear: "We need to save money, let's cut the toxic-waste-plug-checker budget, despite this very serious risk that doing so will leave leaks unnoticed." Now, if the company refused to act and had no knowledge it should act to prevent injury, and then something bad happens, it's just an accident and might bring a civil case but not a criminal one. This all hinges on the concept of mens raea, the "guilty mind." This idea is fundamental to a lot of corporate/mafia strategy whereby the companies intentionally refuse to accept information about their own actions so that such knowledge doesn't implicate them as criminally liable. If Boss gives Goon a car and tells him to drive it into a lake, he isn't criminally liable for murder if he didn't know there was a living person in the trunk beforehand. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea]
59. Re:Can we have someone go to jail now, please? by MightyYar · 2013-09-12 02:31 · Score: 1
  
  Dunno about you, I would notice if my garden hose was on continuously for 5 days... and it's not spouting wastewater.
  They may very well have been negligent - that's what the grand jury decided, anyway. I was responding to the comment about locking someone up. I meant to put the scale of the spill in perspective - this isn't some grand environmental disaster.
  You might not notice your garden hose running, depending on where the water was going. It was raining the day the inspectors arrived. Just being the devil's advocate.
  
  --
  W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
60. Re:Can we have someone go to jail now, please? by Sure,+Not · 2013-09-12 02:31 · Score: 1
  
  Grounds for a class-action?
61. Re:Can we have someone go to jail now, please? by MightyYar · 2013-09-12 02:36 · Score: 1
  
  I can't agree. Having to deal with a courtroom situation where your lawyers can't sweep it all away with a private settlement must cause corporate lawyer nightmares. There are probably all sorts of insurance and contractual implications to being convicted of something.
  
  --
  W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
62. Re:Can we have someone go to jail now, please? by h4rr4r · 2013-09-12 03:20 · Score: 2
  
  You mean nightmares like laughing while you pay the fine and plead no contest?
  I would love to see some of the implications. So far BP seems totally fine.
63. Re:Can we have someone go to jail now, please? by Artagel · 2013-09-12 03:21 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, an old Benjamin Franklin experiment to find the thickness of an oil particle.
  http://www.avs.org/PDF/richmond.pdf
  Many, many hits on google for this experiment. It actually happened unlike the kite/lightning storm thing.
64. Re:Can we have someone go to jail now, please? by LifesABeach · 2013-09-12 03:28 · Score: 1
  
  Is it Regicide if a person cannot respond?
65. Re:Can we have someone go to jail now, please? by MightyYar · 2013-09-12 03:39 · Score: 2
  
  Perfectly fine? Take a look at the 5-year stock price chart for Exxon vs BP. That's on top of the cash payments (to the owners, the dividend hit). Total return since just before the spill is very poor. Someone who purchased $10k worth of stock in BP is down over $5800 compared to someone who bought Exxon, and down almost $2900 in absolute terms.
  
  --
  W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
66. Re:Can we have someone go to jail now, please? by h4rr4r · 2013-09-12 03:40 · Score: 1
  
  Compared to the people whose livelihoods they nearly destroyed, yeah I would say that is fine. Oh noes you did not get your dividend for something that mere mortals would rot in jail for, woe is you.
67. Re:Can we have someone go to jail now, please? by MightyYar · 2013-09-12 03:49 · Score: 1
  
  Compared to the people whose livelihoods they nearly destroyed, yeah I would say that is fine.
  I was just demonstrating that the owners of the company did in fact suffer as a result of the spill. One more would kill the company - it barely survived this spill. They have a very strong incentive to take more precautions going forward.
  
  something that mere mortals would rot in jail for,
  Really, can you show me an instance of someone sitting in jail for accidentally spilling oil?
  
  --
  W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
68. Re:Can we have someone go to jail now, please? by shbazjinkens · 2013-09-12 03:51 · Score: 1
  
  For that matter, oil floats on top of water, so how does the lower 99% get contaminated? If somehow a gallon of oil was mixed into water in such a way that every molecule of oil was separate, and each molecule floated 7 inches from any other one, how many gallons would be contaminated by that oil?
  All of them. Remember that when the fluid comes out of the well, there is gas, water and oil in one turbulent, bubbly stream. The separation process is relatively simple and doesn't include any filtering really. It's basically a settling process with some baffling to slow the turbulence. The oil and water in the beginning are quite well mixed from turbulence and so on. Lots of stuff that makes oil black can dissolve in water better than it can dissolve in oil, so produced water is really nasty, caustic stuff and varies from clear to black. Depending on the locale it can even eat through stainless steel sometimes. Oil contamination is not the biggest issue, but due to soaps used for lifting the fluid it may have some dispersion, regardless of the other chemicals often pumped down there specifically to separate the oil and water. A typical oil loss to water might be 0.001% if the process is fine tuned and the separation equipment is appropriately sized, or worse if it's not (which it usually isn't in the beginning).
  
  I work on safety systems to prevent these kinds of accidents. By law these tanks have a berm around them to capture the leaked fluid if they are permanently installed, temporary vessels may not, so I'm guessing this was a temporary vessel like a frac tank (looks like a big shipping container). The plug they're referring to is most likely a 1/2" or 1/4" NPT plug where a level gauge or fluid level controller would be installed. They are usually isolated by valves, which may not have been completely closed, and may not have been noticed by the local FNG before the tank was filled and the leak began. No one would usually congregate in this area to notice, so bringing criminal charges is sort of ridiculous. In the end, we wouldn't be talking about jailing an Exxon CEO, more like your childhood buddy who didn't go to college and tries to make a living working wrenches in the oil field. It seems like a costly, but honest, mistake to me. I know from working in the area that there is definitely no top-down directive to violate EPA laws. There are literally daily meetings where human and environmental safety are stressed as the highest priority, especially at a larger company like XTO. They definitely realize that the public wants to castrate them for any reason it possibly can and make the utmost efforts to prevent these kind of environmental (and PR) disasters.
69. Re:Can we have someone go to jail now, please? by h4rr4r · 2013-09-12 04:38 · Score: 1
  
  Negligence is an accident now?
  I can show you plenty of people going to jail for other forms of negligence and you had better believe if it was up to me that kind of thing would result in jail time too.
  Clearly we have different definitions of suffer, these folks are not sleeping in a cell, or missing meals, or worried about paying their bills. Not being able to buy a 5th Ferrari is not suffering.
70. Re:Can we have someone go to jail now, please? by Khashishi · 2013-09-12 04:53 · Score: 1
  
  It might result in loss of life 30 years from now.
71. Re:Can we have someone go to jail now, please? by Khashishi · 2013-09-12 04:56 · Score: 1
  
  It is not considered negligent because oil companies are expected to pollute.
72. Re:Can we have someone go to jail now, please? by Xaedalus · 2013-09-12 05:23 · Score: 1
  
  This idea would destroy the world-wide economy so fast we'd all be back in the stone age before we knew it. Corporations exist to give groups of people the ability to use resources to produce a product without having to put their personal wealth, resources, or health on the line. If your idea were to take hold, absolutely no one would want to do anything for fear of someone else taking advantage of them. Or worse, declaring them to be a criminal and thus seizing their entire company and all their personal items.
  
  --
  Here's to hot beer, cold women, and Glaswegian kisses for all.
73. Re:Can we have someone go to jail now, please? by MightyYar · 2013-09-12 05:27 · Score: 1
  
  you had better believe if it was up to me that kind of thing would result in jail time too.
  I don't generally support jail time for nonviolent offenders.
  
  Clearly we have different definitions of suffer, these folks are not sleeping in a cell, or missing meals, or worried about paying their bills. Not being able to buy a 5th Ferrari is not suffering.
  Most of "these folks" are pension funds.
  
  --
  W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
74. Re:Can we have someone go to jail now, please? by h4rr4r · 2013-09-12 06:20 · Score: 1
  
  I normally would not, but this is a public health issue. This is essentially a delayed assault on their neighbors.
  Sounds like they should have invested better.
75. Re:Can we have someone go to jail now, please? by MightyYar · 2013-09-12 06:33 · Score: 1
  
  It's a stretch to connect a cleaned-up spill to a violent crime. A guy who neglects his brakes until he crashes his car into a potato patch likely won't go to jail. The same man plowing into someone and killing them probably would.
  
  --
  W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
76. Re:Can we have someone go to jail now, please? by h4rr4r · 2013-09-12 06:45 · Score: 1
  
  The problem is this is between those two. This might kill someone, or more likely simply take a couple minutes/hours/days/months/years off their lives.
  On top of it this is someone who claims to do this for a living. So make that a racecar driver that neglects his brakes.
77. Re:Can we have someone go to jail now, please? by MightyYar · 2013-09-12 07:20 · Score: 1
  
  How in the world will this kill someone? Or even injure someone? They did remediation to the EPA's satisfaction, AFAICT.
  
  --
  W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
78. Re:Can we have someone go to jail now, please? by h4rr4r · 2013-09-12 07:43 · Score: 1
  
  Because it has been leaking for an unknown amount of time, the 50k gallons is just what they can prove.
  The EPA made them remove topsoil, the water could well have made it much deeper.
79. Re:Can we have someone go to jail now, please? by MightyYar · 2013-09-12 08:02 · Score: 1
  
  If you are going for criminal charges, you need a unanimous jury and the threshold is "beyond a reasonable doubt". You (or the government) can sue them for what they might have done in civil court, but speculation and heresy does not belong in criminal court.
  
  --
  W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
80. Re:Can we have someone go to jail now, please? by Patent+Lover · 2013-09-12 12:58 · Score: 1
  
  LOL, really? Corporations are people. Sort of. Well, not really.
81. Re:Can we have someone go to jail now, please? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-12 13:04 · Score: 0
  
  A cancer cluster will show up in the area, and everyone will be scratching their heads as to why it is happening.
82. Re:Can we have someone go to jail now, please? by khallow · 2013-09-12 13:35 · Score: 1
  
  So am I correct to say that you think consequences are more important than whether somebody has violated somebody else's property?
  Definitely. Consider a once time trespassing versus a one time burning someone's house down. Both are violations of somebody else's property.
83. Re:Can we have someone go to jail now, please? by khallow · 2013-09-12 13:36 · Score: 1
  
  If you want to drink the stuff fine by me, but don't expect that I want to drink it too.
  How is that going to get into my drink?
84. Re:Can we have someone go to jail now, please? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-13 01:07 · Score: 0
  
  Definitely. Consider a once time trespassing versus a one time burning someone's house down. Both are violations of somebody else's property.
  Ok, fine. Just want to be sure where you stand.
  Now let's go back to your original analogy or comparison to war on drugs. How is a drug user, putting chemicals into his own body, a violation of somebody else's property?
85. Re:Can we have someone go to jail now, please? by khallow · 2013-09-13 10:03 · Score: 1
  
  Now let's go back to your original analogy or comparison to war on drugs. How is a drug user, putting chemicals into his own body, a violation of somebody else's property?
  As I said earlier, I consider consequences more important than minor violations of someone's property. Please stop wasting my time with irrelevant questions.
86. Re:Can we have someone go to jail now, please? by Ol+Olsoc · 2013-09-13 12:33 · Score: 1
  
  This didn't result in the loss of human life. Who knows what might have happened? The plug could have come undone. My father manages the (clean) water for a property and even a small plug left unfastened can leak insane amounts of water in a short period of time.
  Yes, they can leak a lot. this one was just about 7 gallons per minute, over a few days that can add up
  The fluids are usually very saline, and of course with the fracking chemicals in them. The danger is more to fish, possibly game birds.
  The big concern however, is that over years, the damage can really add up, just like the leaks or other spills
  And let there be no mistake about it, if you do not hold these companies noses to the grindstone, they will do whatever is the least expensive and most profitable thing - for them. They do not care about what comes after them.
  I could give guided tours of what happens when there is no regulation. A prime example is the Red Moshannon river in this area. This river is named because it has vinegar plus strength acidity water coursing through it, which precipitates iron oxide on the rocks. This comes from iron pyrite releasing sulfuric acid when it gets wet.
  The the water courses downstream, releasing aluminum from the rocks, and killing anything in the water. The destruction doesn't stop until the polluted rivers reach a river big enough and with enough alkaline buffering to alter the pH to something more normal.
  The pyrite comes from old mining operations, who in the days before regulation had a really cool trick. You mine an area, then when the ore/coal/whatever is about played out, you declare bankruptcy. Then you have a family member open a new mine elsewhere, usually with money transferred from the old company.
  That way, you aren't responsible for the mess you leave. And they left them - big messes. Pyritic streams, highwalls and tailing piles. Lots of destruction. No fishing, no logging, no real estate worth anything. Lots of money that could have been made. The gas industry has thousands of abandoned well that leak methane, have caused explosions, and make it very dangerous to plant new water wells near them. (google abandoned gas well)
  That's my big thing. Who decides that a mineral extraction company has the right to destroy land that could be used for future accumulation of wealth by hopefully more responsible people? They always like to paint their "enemies" as tree hugging hippie Vegans or the like. Not necessarily so. Some times we are capitalists who are pissed off that they destroyed resources we could make money off of also.
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
87. Re:Can we have someone go to jail now, please? by Ol+Olsoc · 2013-09-13 12:35 · Score: 1
  
  We've only been told for years that we must punish all offenders heavily.
  Told by idiots. What's your take on the War on Drugs? All drug carrying offenders must be punished heavily, amirite?
  Sure. But the argument here is that if there is any criminal case, it will be counterproductive.
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
88. Re: Can we have someone go to jail now, please? by RockDoctor · 2013-09-15 20:16 · Score: 1
  
  Just for your information, barium is now, has always been, and will always be (for the foreseeable future) a moderately poisonous accumulative heavy metal poison. It's biggest reason for not being a severe poison is the very low solubility of it's sulphate salt, which tends to keep blood concentrations low. On the other hand, this makes it extremely slow to clear.
  It's not impossible that genetic engineering could produce a compound that chelates with barium (to prevent it contacting sulphate ions) but can still pass through the kidney and be pissed away. But avoiding contact with the chemical is much much easier.
  
  --
  Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
They dumped the waste water yet no misconduct by Crimey+McBiggles · 2013-09-11 13:56 · Score: 2

Explain that one to me again?

--
Crimey
1. Re:They dumped the waste water yet no misconduct by tysonedwards · 2013-09-11 14:11 · Score: 1
  
  When XTO provides 36% of all taxes paid in Lycoming County, they are probably willing to look the other way.
  
  --
  Thirty four characters live here.
2. Re:They dumped the waste water yet no misconduct by cirby · 2013-09-11 14:28 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  It's according to how much actual toxic waste was in the water.
  While the article (and the excerpt above) mention a list of scary chemicals that "can" be found in wastewater from natural gas drilling, it's also quite possible that the major component was... mud. And a small percentage of oil (usually three percent or less, and even lower for a natural gas well, all the way down to "practically zero") - and other not-very-toxic stuff. Or "toxic chemicals" found in parts per million or lower. If they were using fracking chemicals, the mud might have had some bleach and surfactants in it.
  Now, if the rock they were drilling through had a high metal content, the water may have picked up some of that - but probably not too much, overall. Enough to break water standards, but not enough to be actually dangerous.
  Since there's no charges, it was probably low-concentration stuff - a technical violation, but not serious.
3. Re: They dumped the waste water yet no misconduct by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 14:38 · Score: 0
  
  Apparently the leak contained a large amount of Hydroxylic Acid...
4. Re:They dumped the waste water yet no misconduct by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 15:20 · Score: 0
  
  Is that really that impressive? I think if a single successful pro football player moved into town you'd see the same tax break.
5. Re:They dumped the waste water yet no misconduct by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 15:20 · Score: 0
  
  It's called plausible deniability
6. Re: They dumped the waste water yet no misconduct by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 15:35 · Score: 0
  
  Don't get cute.... that's just an alternate name for dihydrogen monoxide, with the "acid" thrown in to sound all scary and stuff.
7. Re:They dumped the waste water yet no misconduct by Ol+Olsoc · 2013-09-11 15:52 · Score: 1
  
  Now, if the rock they were drilling through had a high metal content, the water may have picked up some of that - but probably not too much, overall. Enough to break water standards, but not enough to be actually dangerous.
  Since there's no charges, it was probably low-concentration stuff - a technical violation, but not serious.
  I can get you some of this stuff if you want to drink it. After all - you declared it not actually dangerous and a technical but not serious violation.
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
8. Re:They dumped the waste water yet no misconduct by fl!ptop · 2013-09-11 16:03 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Explain that one to me again?
  Because shit happens. I've worked at several big chemical plants and all of them have had spills. (To me, this sounds like a "spill" and not "dumping waste.") It's just the nature of the beast, nothing works perfectly all the time. At one plant in particular, vandals/kids/idiots with too much time on their hands got onto the property (not hard to do when the facility covers thousands of acres) and removed a cover off a pipe, causing thousands of gallons of water with a ph of about 1 to flow into a nearby stream, which eventually made its way into the bay and caused a large fish kill. Yes, the company was fined. Yes, corrective action was taken to avoid it from happening again.
  From what I read, Exxon cleaned up the contaminated area as best they could. I seriously doubt the spill was done on purpose. I live in the middle of frack-land and these oil companies are spending millions buying/leasing mineral rights, hauling equipment in and out, drilling, fracking, trucking out wastewater and hauling equipment away. Millions of dollars are spent at each drill site. They're not going to risk "dumping" wastewater to save a few bucks on having it hauled away.
  
  --
  When you recognize love in another and realize how precious it is, everything else seems so insignificant.
9. Re:They dumped the waste water yet no misconduct by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 17:06 · Score: 0
  
  Have a look in your super market at the non food parts and see what chemicals are being sold....all this stuff goes down the drain. It is a huge volume of chemicals and much of it nastier than those pesky fracking chemicals....Maybe you would like to drink some of your grey water?
10. Re: They dumped the waste water yet no misconduct by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 17:47 · Score: 0
  
  We shouldn't be adding to pollution. We shouldn't be reasoning like: "Well everyone else does it, so I can too." That's the type of market groupthink that led to toxic assets.
11. Re:They dumped the waste water yet no misconduct by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 21:57 · Score: 0
  
  ...Millions of dollars are spent at each drill site. They're not going to risk "dumping" wastewater to save a few bucks on having it hauled away.
  And therein lies the real problem. Your assumption here.
  Has it not become painfully obvious to you that the "fines" slapped on the financial sector for major fuck-ups aren't even a monetary slap on the wrist? They make billions operating in quasi-illegal fashion, only to know that if they ever get caught, their army of lawyers will dismiss it down to a fine of only millions.
  You said it yourself. Millions are spent at these drill sites, and presumably they turn that into a profit of billions (considering the product we're talking about here).
  Fines don't prevent jack shit in industry today. Morality and ethics do. The more profit there is to make, the less morals and ethics you will find applied.
  Moral of the story: Don't make dangerous assumptions that companies won't be negligent on purpose to "save a few bucks". They'll do it every fucking time if it means massive profits while paying laughable fines.
12. Re:They dumped the waste water yet no misconduct by hxnwix · 2013-09-12 00:18 · Score: 1
  
  It's according to how much actual toxic waste was in the water.
  While the article (and the excerpt above) mention a list of scary chemicals that "can" be found in wastewater from natural gas drilling, it's also quite possible that the major component was... mud. And a small percentage of oil (usually three percent or less, and even lower for a natural gas well, all the way down to "practically zero") - and other not-very-toxic stuff. Or "toxic chemicals" found in parts per million or lower. If they were using fracking chemicals, the mud might have had some bleach and surfactants in it.
  Now, if the rock they were drilling through had a high metal content, the water may have picked up some of that - but probably not too much, overall. Enough to break water standards, but not enough to be actually dangerous.
  Since there's no charges, it was probably low-concentration stuff - a technical violation, but not serious.
  Dear lord, drilling mud is more than just plain mud. "Parts per million! Who cares about a few parts per million!?"
  Those are the parts that get you!
13. Re:They dumped the waste water yet no misconduct by Attila+Dimedici · 2013-09-12 00:38 · Score: 1
  
  There is a key difference between the financial sector and oil companies. The financial sector is contains large numbers of Democratic Party supporters and politicians (for example, Jon Corzine). The oil companies have fewer politicians and big time political supporters (at least as a percentage of people employed by the industry).
  
  --
  The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
14. Re:They dumped the waste water yet no misconduct by firex726 · 2013-09-12 00:39 · Score: 1
  
  What about other Counties?
  Rivers don't just stop at the county line. Pollutants can be carried down stream, and make it into groundwater for an entire state.
15. Re:They dumped the waste water yet no misconduct by PPalmgren · 2013-09-12 00:42 · Score: 1
  
  Even if what you said was true, you assume that the reward outweighs the risk. You are flat out wrong. Intent matters. In our industry, we get a serious investigation from OSHA even if a union worker dies of a heart attack, or if someone ran a stop sign and caused an accident at the facility. We do everything we can to make it safe, even as far as changing traffic patterns, and it is the number one commitment in my company. See, the fines START at the massive numbers and are reduced if you can prove that it was not willful negligence. Basically, you ahve to have policies in place that control against bad behavior in a reasonable manner or you have no oomph to your requests to reduce fines when accidents occur. It is more expensive to hide than it is to implement properly, and even if you are focusing solely on the money, it is more expensive to anyone worth their salt who can map out all the real costs associated with bad behavior.
  The companies that can't look beyond step 2 are the ones that fail. Safety pays, as does reducing emissions and power consumption.
16. Re:They dumped the waste water yet no misconduct by Politburo · 2013-09-12 01:47 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, shit happens. This is why environmental laws include an "affirmative defense", which more or less says you are not liable for shit happening.
  
  However one component of affirmative defense is that you were operating in accordance with sound engineering principles and good environmental practice. A tank being opened for 5 days does not appear to meet that standard.
  
  Simply cleaning up your mess is generally not sufficient recourse for environmental releases. There should always be a penalty component to prevent operators from thinking "oh who cares, we'll just fix it later".
  
  The fact that they are spending money to drill seems to have no relevance on whether or not there should be a penalty.
17. Re: They dumped the waste water yet no misconduct by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-12 02:11 · Score: 0
  
  Suppose an industrial process was invented that released large amounts of Oxygen to the atmosphere.
  Increasing the percentage of Oxygen in the atmosphere means that fires are harder to extinguish.
  Would you call Oxygen a pollutant and the emission of it pollution?
18. Re:They dumped the waste water yet no misconduct by Khashishi · 2013-09-12 05:00 · Score: 1
  
  You got a source for that? Otherwise, I don't see how that is informative.
19. Re:They dumped the waste water yet no misconduct by Khashishi · 2013-09-12 05:05 · Score: 1
  
  I've worked at several big chemical plants and all of them have had spills.
  Wow, I feel much better about this now.
20. Re:They dumped the waste water yet no misconduct by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-12 06:04 · Score: 0
  
  It depends on the type and zone of the gas well. Here in the rockies, we have a lot of condensate (read light crude) in our conventional gas wells. Coalbed methane wells, of course, have none.
21. Re:They dumped the waste water yet no misconduct by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-12 13:14 · Score: 0
  
  From what I read, Exxon cleaned up the contaminated area as best they could. I seriously doubt the spill was done on purpose. I live in the middle of frack-land and these oil companies are spending millions buying/leasing mineral rights, hauling equipment in and out, drilling, fracking, trucking out wastewater and hauling equipment away. Millions of dollars are spent at each drill site. They're not going to risk "dumping" wastewater to save a few bucks on having it hauled away.
  
  Down the street from where I used to work, they were dumping soil that was being dredged to put up a hotel near the waterfront. That soil sat in a pile for years. Then one day a bunch of people show up in Hazmat gear, with shakers to separate the soil, because it was toxic. How many dry days, with the wind blowing the right way, did I breathe in whatever toxic substance was in that dirt pile? Later on we find out that they new it was toxic, but the company claimed it wasn't so they could get the project done. Anyone that trusts corporations is a fool. All that matters to them is MONEY, and nothing else.
22. Re:They dumped the waste water yet no misconduct by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-12 13:18 · Score: 0
  
  Goofed up my quote. ;-(
  Down the street from where I used to work, they were dumping soil that was being dredged to put up a hotel near the waterfront. That soil sat in a pile for years. Then one day a bunch of people show up in Hazmat gear, with shakers to separate the soil, because it was toxic. How many dry days, with the wind blowing the right way, did I breathe in whatever toxic substance was in that dirt pile? Later on we find out that they new it was toxic, but the company claimed it wasn't so they could get the project done. Anyone that trusts corporations is a fool. All that matters to them is MONEY, and nothing else.
Yes, it happens by YrWrstNtmr · 2013-09-11 13:57 · Score: 3, Interesting

And it will continue to happen, no matter the technology.
Nuke, frak, solar panel production, high capacity battery production....some idiot middle manager will try to reduce costs at his level, and this is what we get.
1. Re:Yes, it happens by eksith · 2013-09-11 13:59 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Then it's time to ruin the lives of those idiot managers. Say to the tune of 5-10 years of wearing an orange jumpsuit in lieu of an Armani jacket?
  
  --
  If computers were people, I'd be a misanthrope.
2. Re:Yes, it happens by Nerdfest · 2013-09-11 14:24 · Score: 1
  
  Plus a significant percentage of company gross income.
Now what? by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2013-09-11 13:58 · Score: 0, Flamebait

My friend had a 50,000 gallon above-ground pool in his backyard. If it's even a problem due to exotic chemicals, make them clean it up. It's not that much.
Why the hell is this a topic aside from obvious desire by some for disasterbation? It would barely be a local news story in some small town.

--
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
1. Re:Now what? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 14:09 · Score: 0
  
  Are you stupid? Why are you talking about back yard pools? Does your friend's pool have chlorides, barium, strontium and aluminum and other chemicals in the pool? If so, this "pool" is probably waste water extracted during shale-gas drilling. If not, then you are just an idiot for not even making a point.
2. Re:Now what? by jamesh · 2013-09-11 14:16 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  My friend had a 50,000 gallon above-ground pool in his backyard. If it's even a problem due to exotic chemicals, make them clean it up. It's not that much.
  Why the hell is this a topic aside from obvious desire by some for disasterbation? It would barely be a local news story in some small town.
  So the company has the decision to make...
  (a) $x to dispose of the waste properly
  (b) $0 to simply turn on a tap and let the waste drain away, and (say) $10x to clean it up in the unlikely event that they get caught, which probably comes out of some other departments budget anyway
  Seems that if there is no actual penalty for (b), then (b) is the obvious choice and it's going to keep happening, which I think is kind of a big deal. It should either be illegal with penalties to suit, or legal and let them do it without any fuss.
  If you threw some rubbish on the ground and were caught, and the only penalty was that you had to pick your rubbish up again, where is the incentive to stop doing it again? (assuming you are too lazy to do the right thing in the first place without some incentive)
3. Re:Now what? by edibobb · 2013-09-11 16:49 · Score: 2
  
  1. Almost any swimming pool will have a some chlorides, such as sodium chloride. The ocean has even more. Salt water is a common by-product in oil and gas wells.
  2. The article says "Wastewater discharged from natural-gas wells can contain chlorides, barium, strontium and aluminum", not that it does. That is hype.
  3. Some idiot pulled a plug in a waste tank. It's not a corporate conspiracy. No major oil company would risk dumping wastewater like that.
4. Re: Now what? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 18:02 · Score: 0
  
  Why wouldn't they, when they have shills like you to stick up for them? "Exxon's shit doesn't stink!"
5. Re:Now what? by captbob2002 · 2013-09-12 00:44 · Score: 1
  
  You forgot the third option, which may or may not be available to Exxon depending on how they work with subsidiaries and/or sub-contractors: declare bankruptcy leaving the clean-up to the taxpayers.
6. Re:Now what? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-12 03:55 · Score: 0
  
  Typical Tap Water Content: Chlorine, Fluorine compounds, Trihalomethanes (THMs), Salts of: arsenic, radium. aluminium, copper, lead, mercury, cadmium, and barium, Hormones, Nitrates and Pesticides
Now ain't that nice by fustakrakich · 2013-09-11 14:06 · Score: 1

If I were a protester attempting to shut it down, or prevent it from ever firing up, I would get two years on terrorism charges.
Golden Rule baby. You know the routine.

--
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
No by rsilvergun · 2013-09-11 14:08 · Score: 4, Funny

they're your ruling class, silly. We don't spill the blood of kings.

--
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
1. Re:No by asm2750 · 2013-09-11 14:12 · Score: 2
  
  Obviously you haven't heard of the French Revolution.
2. Re:No by the+eric+conspiracy · 2013-09-11 15:31 · Score: 2
  
  Unfortunately the French Revolution was very indiscriminate.
  see: Antoine Lavoisier
3. Re:No by haruchai · 2013-09-11 15:37 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  In America? Not a chance.
  The NRA and the gun-toting loudmouths will make a big fuss about needing firearms to defend against Obama, er, government tyranny, tree of liberty, blood of patriots, blah, blah.
  But to actually rise up against the establishment?
  That's for college students, weed-smoking liberal hippies, unwashed OWS layabouts and Muslims.
  
  --
  Pain is merely failure leaving the body
4. Re:No by Mashiki · 2013-09-11 16:07 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Yeah those "college students, weed smoking liberal hippies, and unwashed OWS layabouts" have done a really good job. Remind me again which political groups that they've worked for that have been acted for/to american society? And of course those "NRA gun-toting loudmouths" were also the backbenchers behind the tea party which ... gee...actually made a serious impact on the political landscape.
  
  --
  Om, nomnomnom...
5. Re:No by haruchai · 2013-09-11 16:59 · Score: 1
  
  So what? Read the parent and grandparent comments.
  
  --
  Pain is merely failure leaving the body
6. Re:No by Microlith · 2013-09-11 17:00 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  a serious impact on the political landscape.
  Yes, but not a good one. Eric Cantor and Mitch McConell have yet to do anything useful or intelligent.
7. Re:No by haruchai · 2013-09-11 17:11 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  The reason for using weapons matters, not just the fact that someone is willing to open fire.
  Those Ted Nugent loudmouths talk a big game and while I'm sure many are serious, most will shit themselves like he did when called to action.
  Although I disapprove of guns in schools for any reason, I'd sooner arm elementary school teachers than any of the 2nd amendment wingnuts.
  At least I know the people like the ones at Sandy Hook will actually put their lives on the line for what they believe in, whether or not they believe they have a right to pack heat.
  Here's right-winger David Frum's take on the matter:
  http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/15/opinion/frum-guns-race/index.html
  
  --
  Pain is merely failure leaving the body
8. Re:No by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 17:16 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  You don't think OWS had a serious impact on the political landscape?
  Either you haven't been paying attention or you have a blind spot.
9. Re: No by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 17:30 · Score: 0
  
  Weed got legalized in a couple states, yo.
10. Re:No by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 17:48 · Score: 0
  
  Its peaceful Revolution!
11. Re:No by jamstar7 · 2013-09-11 18:07 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  a serious impact on the political landscape.
  Yes, but not a good one. Eric Cantor and Mitch McConell have yet to do anything useful or intelligent.
  They're not supposed to. They're meat puppets. They got the corporate hand shoved so far up their asses, they're chewing the Koch brothers' fingernails.
  
  --
  Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
12. Re:No by jamstar7 · 2013-09-11 18:11 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Back in the day, they used to teach gun safety and marksmanship in schools. It was part of PE. Nobody shot up school campuses back in those days.
  
  Course, back then, they actually funded things like mental hospitals to treat mental patients, not elect them to Congress...
  
  --
  Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
13. Re:No by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 18:57 · Score: 1
  
  They didn't, and that's the point. NRA types make a big fuss about needing guns to rise up against the establishment, but when the time comes to do it, they leave it to the college students. Who then do a piss poor job of it, which is why there's no revolution.
  I'm not sure how Muslims got thrown in with the students and hippies.
14. Re:No by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 20:00 · Score: 0
  
  ... It was part of PE. ...
  
  Video games are the cheaper outlet for aggression, even more so because the student pays for the game. Plus, if that isn't adequate therapy, video games can then be blamed as the perpetrator; not the underfunded health services or school-yard of horny, bitchy, violent adolescents.
  
  ... Nobody shot up school campuses ...
  
  My thoughts while accurate will be blamed as politically insensitive to massacre survivors.
15. Re:No by hairyfeet · 2013-09-11 20:12 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Just wait until the stock bubble bursts which will make the great depression look like a flash crash (those that have crunched the numbers say it could take a half a century or more to recover) and then get back to us,mmmkay?
  You have nearly HALF the population getting some form of government assistance, THIS is why you haven't seen an "Arab Spring" in the USA despite a dead economy and jobs being shipped overseas by the hundreds of thousands yearly, this "bread and circuses" keep the teeming masses of poor just enough above water to keep them quiet...what do you HONESTLY think is gonna happen when those checks no longer come? Every rich person with any brains will "get to teh choppa" and fly the fuck out of here, the rest? Won't be looking so good by the time the mess is over.
  Look at the numbers in the video folks, starting around 3.30, you'll see when this stock bubble pops it'll make 1929 look like 2008. The ONLY reason the peasants have been passive so long is the so called "safety net" that keeps them in food, clothes, and a home,when that ends? remember there is nothing more dangerous than people with absolutely nothing to lose and the poor outnumber the top 5% by a good 100,000 to 1, not great odds.
  
  --
  ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
16. Re:No by Oil_Tan · 2013-09-11 21:00 · Score: 1
  
  corporate capitalism is not democracy
17. Re:No by chthon · 2013-09-11 21:06 · Score: 1
  
  Where's old Stoneface when you need him?
18. Re:No by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 21:20 · Score: 0
  
  The poor outnumber the top 5% by 19:1 at most.
19. Re:No by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 21:28 · Score: 0
  
  I love the irony of people argument about which side has done less to solve the problem. I'm sure it's much easier than doing something to help solve the problem.
20. Re:No by ixuzus · 2013-09-11 22:45 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Of course not. Back then kids learned about guns and respected them... or rather acted like stupid juveniles with access to firearms
21. Re:No by advocate_one · 2013-09-11 23:16 · Score: 1
  
  I'm convinced this is why the US is so desperate to kick start WW3 via intervention in Syria... to get a massive reduction in the world's population level.
  
  --
  Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
22. Re:No by AmiMoJo · 2013-09-11 23:31 · Score: 1
  
  the poor outnumber the top 5% by a good 100,000 to 1, not great odds
  You were doing so well up to that point, I almost clicked the YouTube link. Still, 19:1 is enough for it to be a problem.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
23. Re:No by h4rr4r · 2013-09-12 00:43 · Score: 1
  
  No they did not. The republicans sold out to the religious right long before they came along. Barry Goldwater's words make sense to you yet?
24. Re:No by h4rr4r · 2013-09-12 00:46 · Score: 2
  
  If you have been unemployed that long, paid into the social safety net when you were employed and now refuse to take advantage you are a dumbass.
25. Re:No by hairyfeet · 2013-09-12 02:00 · Score: 1
  
  Have you seen how few actually qualify for top 1%? You could fit all of them in your average big city gym. Oh I see the problem now, hit the 5 instead of a 1, my bad, sorry. That is what I get for typing on a 1989 clicky clack with the key lettering worn off while my GF is asleep, no light means I'm going by memory and occasionally I goof, oops.
  
  --
  ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
26. Re:No by kilfarsnar · 2013-09-12 02:34 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah those "college students, weed smoking liberal hippies, and unwashed OWS layabouts" have done a really good job. Remind me again which political groups that they've worked for that have been acted for/to american society? And of course those "NRA gun-toting loudmouths" were also the backbenchers behind the tea party which ... gee...actually made a serious impact on the political landscape.
  They made a serious impact after they were co-opted by members of the Establishment.
  http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/29/opinion/29rich.html?_r=0
  The Establishment is not monolithic; there are many powerful people promoting their disparate agendas. Still, it's hard to get anything done in America without at least some wealth and power behind you. So the issue of the wealthy and powerful having out sized influence and legal latitude never really gets addressed.
  
  --
  "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
27. Re:No by AmiMoJo · 2013-09-12 02:58 · Score: 1
  
  1% is still a ratio of 99:1. That's literally what "percent" means, "per one hundred". The top 5% is the top 5 out of every 100 people.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
28. Re:No by RMingin · 2013-09-12 03:02 · Score: 1
  
  Like wars, revolutions are terrible, bloody things, filled with loss for both sides. This is necessary, else we would have Jefferson's idea of revolutions every year.
  
  --
  The preceding comment is my own, and in no way construes an opinon of the Emperor of Mankind.
29. Re:No by operagost · 2013-09-12 03:11 · Score: 1
  
  Last time I checked, Obama was part of the establishment.
  
  --
  
  Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
30. Re:No by EdhelDil · 2013-09-12 04:13 · Score: 1
  
  Obviously you haven't heard of the French Revolution.
  Nooobody expects the French Revolution! Our 2 weapons are fear, cynicism, and a fanatical devotion to our Past... Er... Our 3 weapons are ...
31. Re:No by mcgrew · 2013-09-12 04:58 · Score: 1
  
  Back in the day, they used to teach gun safety and marksmanship in schools. It was part of PE.
  Back in what day? I'm 61 and they never taught me marksmanship or gun safety in school. My dad taught me. And they didn't treat mental patients, they warehoused them to keep crazies out of society. Now they're panhandling and bothering people, and in most cases if these poor wretches got treatment they'd be productive members of society.
  I think some other geezer's been pulling your leg, son. Because what you allege is simply not true.
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
32. Re:No by clay_shooter · 2013-09-12 05:35 · Score: 1
  
  We had rifle ranges at two of my middle/high schools (we moved a lot). There were never any problems with firearms at either one. For the other post down below, it was part of either PE or after school activities.
33. Re:No by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-12 06:06 · Score: 0
  
  But all those jobs are "mexican", for teens 18-24, or chicks (that job at the counter in gamestop)
  Christ, what a sexist, racist comment.
  I was told to get social security yet again today. I said nope. Fuck that its dishonorable. Now unemployed 3 years. I'm not a dumbass.
  I have to vehemently disagree with that, dumbass.
34. Re:No by Agent0013 · 2013-09-12 10:11 · Score: 1
  
  If you count the top 5% of income or wealth, then that is not the same as 5% of the population. The top 5% wealthy could by something like only 0.1% of the population.
  
  --
  
  -- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
35. Re:No by I'm+New+Around+Here · 2013-09-12 10:31 · Score: 1
  
  The reason for using weapons matters, not just the fact that someone is willing to open fire.
  So why do you expect them to start assassinating government officials, rather than using the ballot box to vote in politicians who they like? Isn't the reason for not using weapons also important?
  You can paint them as extremists and nut jobs, but they haven't started killing people to impose their political beliefs on you, have they?
  Basically, you are just spouting off about people who disagree with you. That's certainly your right, so have fun with it.
  
  Those Ted Nugent loudmouths talk a big game and while I'm sure many are serious, most will shit themselves like he did when called to action.
  I never heard that story, so thanks for referring to it. He says he didn't do so, and made up the story when talking to interviewers who were stoned. I can't say which story is reality, but it is ridiculous.
  
  Although I disapprove of guns in schools for any reason, I'd sooner arm elementary school teachers than any of the 2nd amendment wingnuts.
  At least I know the people like the ones at Sandy Hook will actually put their lives on the line for what they believe in, whether or not they believe they have a right to pack heat.
  Again, the ones with guns who aren't killing government officials are the "wingnuts", but you have the clarity of thought to decide who deserves to be able to defend themselves.
  
  Here's right-winger David Frum's take on the matter:
  http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/15/opinion/frum-guns-race/index.html
  From what I just read of him, I wouldn't put him too far in the "right-wing" column. But as to his article, claiming that people who advocate having the means to defend themselves are simply racists, or at have an exaggerated fear of black men, is more of the same tripe that's been spewed for years by left-wingers. I'll file it in the appropriate circular receptacle.
  
  --
  If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
36. Re:No by hairyfeet · 2013-09-12 12:49 · Score: 1
  
  Uhhh...I think you missed where the conversation was going friend as we were talking about wealth and NOT about population. Here let me illustrate...if we have 100 people in the room (100% of the population) and $100 that is to be divided up among those hundred people and I get $99 dollars of it right off the bat that does NOT make me 99 people, that just gives me control, complete control, of our wealth while YOU and the other 98 guys get to kill yourself fighting over a couple of cents of that last dollar...understand it now?
  I'm sure you were confused about the usage of the "1%" moniker which is really just shorthand for the elite, the ones that control more than 80% of the wealth? Actually more like 0.01% if you wanted to view it as relative to the population. Since 0.01% just doesn't roll off the tongue the phrase "1%er" was used instead but reality its more like 0.01%er. Sorry if I caused confusion.
  
  --
  ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
37. Re:No by haruchai · 2013-09-12 14:41 · Score: 1
  
  Have you already forgotten Nugent saying "he'd be dead or in jail" within a year if Obama was re-elected and that he was "as serious as a heart attack"?
  Let's see him claim somewhere down the road that he made that up, too.
  Nugent sits on the NRA board, fer fuck's sake.
  As far as Frum goes, he has a legit claim to paraphrase Reagan's famous phrase that he didn't leave the right-wing, the right-wing left him.
  I can't recall who it was that said that since Reagan, the Democrats have moved to the right and the right moved in to a mental hospital.
  I don't agree with Frum on many issues but I don't think he's batshit, unlike many of the pro-gun, anti-taxes, Kenyan-socialist-hating airhead mouthpieces.
  
  --
  Pain is merely failure leaving the body
38. Re:No by haruchai · 2013-09-12 14:44 · Score: 1
  
  I added that because of the Arab Spring where ordinary mostly-unarmed citizens stood up to oppressive regimes.
  
  --
  Pain is merely failure leaving the body
39. Re:No by haruchai · 2013-09-12 14:48 · Score: 1
  
  He absolutely is but that doesn't fit the rightwingnut narrative so instead he's a Kenyan Muslim divisive socialist who's coming for your guns.
  Didn't you get the memo?
  
  --
  Pain is merely failure leaving the body
How come by rsilvergun · 2013-09-11 14:09 · Score: 2

when it's a mistake it's 'some middle manager' but whenever something goes right it's 'the CEO's leadership'. Man, I wish I could fsck up and my job all day and blame all the guys that don't get to make any real decisions...

--
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
1. Re:How come by haruchai · 2013-09-11 15:44 · Score: 1
  
  If you could do that, you'd be the CEO.
  
  --
  Pain is merely failure leaving the body
Business as usual by djupedal · 2013-09-11 14:09 · Score: 1

I'm not sure the public is surprised these days by either talk of a violation/spill or a 'statement' from the corp insisting no wrong doing occurred. This is driven, as always, by the corp. lawyers. They want as little talk of culpability as possible in public so they can cut deals in court and get their client off with as little penalty as they can swing.

What I want to see is the difference between legal and illegal 'dumping'. Sounds redundant, emotional and perhaps an attempt to make things either worse than they actually were - something a prosecutor wants on the public record? If that's the case here, it's a shame because it just muddies the waters for change in the way 'dumping' could otherwise be better controlled when serious events take place. They will happen - it's the reduction in bonehead moves before and after I want changed.
What does that mean? by mooingyak · 2013-09-11 14:09 · Score: 1

From TFA:

XTO Energy Inc. is charged with five counts of unlawful conduct under the Clean Streams Law and three counts of unlawful conduct under the Solid Waste Management Act.
What does it mean for a corporation to face criminal charges? Is this just civil damages in a weird format, or is a specific person/people being held liable? Both linked articles refer only to XTO and not to any individual being charged.

--
William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
1. Re:What does that mean? by chromaexcursion · 2013-09-11 14:19 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  A corporation's board of directors are legally responsible for the company's actions.
  Failure to appear when subpoenas are issued will have serious consequences for the billionaires.
  You can't just send a lawyer to represent you in a criminal court.
  Forcing the people that run the company to show up in court will send a message.
2. Re:What does that mean? by Neppy · 2013-09-11 14:31 · Score: 1
  
  It means they will lawyer up until the government accepts a monetary settlement and all the executives get away unharmed. Or maybe with a bonus for "navigating dire straights" or some such nonsense.
3. Re:What does that mean? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 14:51 · Score: 0
  
  You can, 5th amendment...
4. Re:What does that mean? by the+eric+conspiracy · 2013-09-11 15:17 · Score: 1
  
  Corporations always indemnify directors and officers for actions they take on behalf of the corporation.
  Otherwise NOBODY would accept such a position.
5. Re:What does that mean? by AuMatar · 2013-09-11 15:34 · Score: 1
  
  Almost always. In some criminal cases the corporate veil can be pierced.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piercing_the_corporate_veil
  
  --
  I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
6. Re:What does that mean? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 15:34 · Score: 0
  
  You can't just send a lawyer to represent you in a criminal court.
  Actually, you can, unless it is an offence you have been bailed to appear for (IANL, but I was talking to one about it). It's easier if you are a coroporation you can send a duly appointed representative, who just happens to be the company lawyer.
  Not that i disagree with your sentiment. Forcing the heads of the corporation into court and actually prosecuting them for the company's actions (which are ultimately decided by the C-level and the Board) is a supurb way to send a message. Of course, those same high-level execs will doctor up a few back-dated internal memos advising employees against that kind of thing and put the blame on some low-level grunt who was just following directions, so it won't work.
  Captcha: admirals (oh, thie irony).
7. Re:What does that mean? by sociocapitalist · 2013-09-11 22:52 · Score: 1
  
  A corporation's board of directors are legally responsible for the company's actions.
  Failure to appear when subpoenas are issued will have serious consequences for the billionaires.
  You can't just send a lawyer to represent you in a criminal court.
  Forcing the people that run the company to show up in court will send a message.
  And seeing them walk out again afterwards will send another message.
  
  --
  blindly antisocialist = antisocial
Not negligent misconduct by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 14:10 · Score: 1

“There was no intentional, reckless or negligent misconduct by XTO.”'
Soooo... what you're saying here is, your employees are incompetent?
1. Re:Not negligent misconduct by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 16:30 · Score: 0
  
  The stupid defense. You must acquit.
2. Re:Not negligent misconduct by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 22:09 · Score: 0
  
  The stupid defense. You must acquit.
  Yes, and thanks to stupendous marks in legal history such as this, we now have precedent on which to base future "defenses" on in a courtroom.
  That's kind of the bitch about prior case law. Sometimes it does nothing more than perpetuate a lack of common sense demonstrated decades before.
Who cares? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 14:14 · Score: 1

They save money and my gas bill is cheaper.
1. Re:Who cares? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 14:26 · Score: 0
  
  They save money and my gas bill is cheaper.
  Cheap gas? What have you been smoking? Gas NEVER gets cheaper no matter how much money they can "save". It all goes to paying their exorbitant salaries.
2. Re:Who cares? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 16:15 · Score: 0
  
  Natural gas, not gasoline, dumbass. NG prices have gone through the floor in the last 5 years owing to shale gas drilling creating a glut.
Robber baron corporate fucktards by wbr1 · 2013-09-11 14:19 · Score: 2, Informative

In Q2 2010, (around when the dumping was occurring), Exxon reported its worst quarterly profits in years. Some might say that explains this, while not excusing this. Corporate pressure to cut budgets was driving lower managers, etc. However, in that -low- quarter, guess how much net profit (not gross revenue) they reported?
6.86 billion dollars
(source: http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/08/01/exxon-2q-profit-lowest-since-2010/2608403/ )
Yep. In one fucking poor quarter they earned nearly 7 billion in profit. But could not bother to dump waste properly. And this was in the USA, with relatively strict, if often bought, environmental laws and protections. Can you imagine what companies like this do in places that do not care or cannot afford enforcement? Where the African dictator of the month just wants a few million to arm his army of children that go village raping?
This is the type of activity we should be pursuing and punishing. Not Syria, let them kill each other off if they want, lets not make enemies of both sides by dropping bombs and killing innocents (which does happen). Not pot smokers and growers. Not lil Suzy mp3 torrenter. Not Aaron Swartz. Not Snowden.
Anyway, I am done ranting, if you stayed through it you can go back to Football/Idol/TMZ now. Cheers

--
Silence is a state of mime.
1. Re: Robber baron corporate fucktards by Guy+Harris · 2013-09-11 14:54 · Score: 1
  
  How much did apple make?
  During the same quarter (Q2 2010)? Assuming ExxonMobil and Apple mean the same thing when they say "Q2", it's 3.07 billion dollars.
2. Re:Robber baron corporate fucktards by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 16:38 · Score: 0
  
  $7 billion sounds like a lot until you look at the fact that they had to spend $100 billion to make it.
3. Re: Robber baron corporate fucktards by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 18:35 · Score: 1
  
  If they spent another billion on caring about the environment, would they starve?
Pardon?! by SIR_Taco · 2013-09-11 14:29 · Score: 2

"The inspectors discovered a plug removed from a tank, allowing the wastewater to run onto the ground, polluting a nearby stream." ...
“There was no intentional, reckless or negligent misconduct by XTO.”'
Not intentional.... okay.
Not reckless nor negligent?! I think someone needs to check the meaning of those words in a non-lawyer dictionary.

--
I say don't drink and drive, you might spill your drink. Before you get behind the wheel just stop and think.
1. Re:Pardon?! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 15:24 · Score: 0
  
  If you operate on someone and you are not a doctor, are you negligent of not going to medical school first or negligent about caring about the requirement or negligent because you are a wild and reckless sort of person? Can negligence and intention be mixed cold?
2. Re:Pardon?! by thegarbz · 2013-09-11 21:17 · Score: 2
  
  Not reckless nor negligent?! I think someone needs to check the meaning of those words in a non-lawyer dictionary.
  These imply intent. Reckless and negligent are words used to describe plants with poor operating controls, poor maintenance, and large problems caused by cost cutting. The inspectors found something, so now they look at the inspection scheme they have, they identify if the inspections were sufficient, if the company would have found the problem themselves and fixed it, or simply ignored it, and they would also look at the company's history of self reporting.
  You can spill a lot more and not be "negligent". Some things are "accidents". You can spill a lot less and definitely be negligent too.
  I won't form an opinion either way based on a soundbite from Bloomberg. I wasn't there and I don't know any of the circumstances.
3. Re:Pardon?! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-12 00:24 · Score: 0
  
  Corporations lie all the time. Anything goes to protect the bottom line.
never been a better example by brillow · 2013-09-11 14:30 · Score: 1

Of big business controlling the gov't
Why not just fine Exxon 3 billion dollars and send everyone in PA to college for free?
1. Re:never been a better example by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 18:36 · Score: 0
  
  Why not just fine Exxon 3 billion dollars and send everyone in PA to college for free?
  The price of college tuition in PA would triple and most of the degrees would be just as worthless.
Fracking waste being dumped on roads by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 14:34 · Score: 0

In Michigan they are dumping Benzene-laden fracking waste on the roads, and mostly getting away with it.
http://www.shalereporter.com/blog/suzie_gilbert/article_f442c14c-08f5-11e3-9ea9-0019bb30f31a.html
1. Re:Fracking waste being dumped on roads by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 15:23 · Score: 0
  
  Dilution is the solution.
  A term commonly used to describe taking highly radioactive waste and diluting it to make much more lower level radioactive waste. Even with more waste, it is cheaper to get rid of because there are less restrictions.
Slashdot song by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 14:37 · Score: 0, Offtopic

News for nerds, stuff that matters
A slogan that is now in tatters
Why bother? ask the faithful few
If stories stink like hangover poo?
Yet hope remains that one day soon
Slashdot will stop acting like a loon
Python v. C! RMS or Linus? Latest stupid user tricks.
What more is need for us cyber-hicks?
Free Market by PopeRatzo · 2013-09-11 14:48 · Score: 1, Insightful

That wasn't "wastewater", that was Exxon's proprietary formula of Hydroxylic Acid. And any children who are found with Hyrdoxylic Acid in their bloodstream better get ready get sued by Exxon.
Job CreatorsTM, bitches!

--
You are welcome on my lawn.
1. Re:Free Market by sconeu · 2013-09-11 15:21 · Score: 0
  
  Could have been worse... could have been Di-Hydrogen Monoxide.
  
  --
  General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
2. Re:Free Market by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 17:07 · Score: 0
  
  I got your sarcasm but how about twisting things a little bit and call it CW deployed by Exxon?
3. Re:Free Market by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 22:24 · Score: 0
  
  That wasn't "wastewater", that was Exxon's proprietary formula of Hydroxylic Acid. And any children who are found with Hyrdoxylic Acid in their bloodstream better get ready get sued by Exxon.
  Job CreatorsTM, bitches!
  [Monsanto laywer to Exxon laywer]"Tell me that's not a bitchin' legal clause, amirite? Fuck yeah!"
4. Re:Free Market by Agent0013 · 2013-09-12 10:32 · Score: 1
  
  Wow, that's really funny. Di-Hydrogen Monoxide and Hydroxylic Acid are the same thing!
  
  --
  
  -- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
5. Re:Free Market by sconeu · 2013-09-12 11:33 · Score: 1
  
  Whoosh. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DHMO
  
  --
  General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
Intent doesn't matter by evil_aaronm · 2013-09-11 15:18 · Score: 1

If they weren't negligent, it wouldn't have happened. If I hit someone, accidentally, with my car and they die, I still get charged. If corporations want to have "people" rights when it comes to campaign finance, they can suffer the consequences when they fuck up like this, intentionally or not.
1. Re:Intent doesn't matter by the+eric+conspiracy · 2013-09-11 15:26 · Score: 1
  
  Nope. Lots of fatal accidents result in no charges. Are you going to charge a driver for hitting some idiot trying to cross a road illegally?
  https://www.piersystem.com/go/doc/2155/1883126/
2. Re: Intent doesn't matter by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 18:39 · Score: 0
  
  So you're saying the stream illegally trespassed on Exxon property?
Full of BS by connor4312 · 2013-09-11 15:20 · Score: 1

Their full article can be viewed here. One of the especially cute things I find on the page is that they give an image of a parking lot, a truck, and some grass to the side. The caption invites the viewer to "[n]ote the... absence of long-term environmental impact." Sorry, XTO, but having green grass on the side of your parking lot does not prove a lack of long-term environmental impact. Not to mention the fact that putting in the parking lot has some significant impacts in and of itself...
So this time they got caught by Required+Snark · 2013-09-11 15:23 · Score: 2

What are the chances that this is the only time they screwed up? I expect that this is standard operating procedure, and they only work legally when they know someone is going to show up.
I wonder what would happen if the fine was large and applied to fund more random inspections. I think it would show they are routinely flaunting the law. If there was any effective law enforcement it might even show a criminal conspiracy. Fortunately no one has to worry about that, because the real outcome will be the result of political pressure to stop inspections.

--
Why is Snark Required?
1. Re:So this time they got caught by thegarbz · 2013-09-11 21:18 · Score: 1
  
  What are the chances that this is the only time they screwed up?
  Quite highly I imagine. People who think it's easy to control every tiny part of a process plant obviously haven't worked at a process plant.
50000 gallons... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 15:31 · Score: 1

You all realize that the amount of water spilled is only 50,000 gallons; That's approximately 1/10th the volume of an Olympic swimming pool.
government to blame as usual by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 15:34 · Score: 0

gotta love all the statists attacking the company for this. not even a single person here is pointing out how the GOVERNMENT failed here big time. what a statist joke Slashdot has become.
Attorney general by mysidia · 2013-09-11 16:00 · Score: 2

attorney general’s statement showed. “Criminal charges are unwarranted and legally baseless,”
Of course they won't prosecure.
Professional courtesy.
From one criminal to another. The big banks were also afforded this courtesy, of arbitrary refusal to prosecute by the US AG.
1. Re:Attorney general by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 17:12 · Score: 0
  
  Has anyone ever said that you might be paranoid?
2. Re: Attorney general by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 18:43 · Score: 0
  
  Denial ain't just a river in Egypt.
Selective language in reporting and charges? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 16:12 · Score: 0

For those not aware, shale gas extraction is done by hydraulic fracturing, aka fracing.
I find it interesting that the aforementioned articles do not mention that drilling methodology at all. I don't think there is any 'conspiracy of sorts' going on, however I do think the reporting is being very selective of language by not mentioning this criminal act, along with hydraulic fracturing.
A hefty fine by rbanzai · 2013-09-11 16:18 · Score: 1

This could cost Exxon HUNDREDS of dollars!
GLORY GLORY HALLELUJAH!!!!! !!!!! !!!!!! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 16:34 · Score: 0

DAMN RIGHT!! !!!! About time somebody has the guts to say this! Government is responsible for everything bad that happens. Bad article on Slashdot? Government. Dog getting sick? Government. Kids getting bad grades at school, even a private school? Government. My alcoholism? Government.
But in ultra, hard-left America, you have to have guts to say this. Most people who dare to speak up against the liberals get shot!
Fucking Democrats! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 16:42 · Score: 1

Damn those socialist Democrats!
They're interfering with a company doing business the way it wants to do. And thanks to them, all our gas prices are gonna go up now.
Companies never pay taxes or fines, they just raise prices and pass them on to us, the consumer.
We Liberals, real Liberals, need to work together and fight this bullshit. Get rid of those nasty environmental laws because they don't accomplish anything. If you don't like the way a company is dealing with its hazardous waste, don't buy their products and encourage others to do the same. Let the free market take care of things.
The invisible hand of the free market by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 17:02 · Score: 0

It wasn't Exxon's fault, it was the invisible hand of the free market!
Exxon are legally required to make the maximum possible profits for the shareholders. When Exxon get their $1 Million fine, everybody will realize that they did in fact make the correct business decision.
The $4 Million that spent on campaign contributions in 2012 is looking like great value right about now - for some reason. As is the $13 Million that they spent on lobbyists in 2012.
Bravo Exxon - you epitomize the American Dream!
A cube less than 6 meters on a side? by Strange+Attractor · 2013-09-11 17:09 · Score: 1

That's what I get for 189 tons of water.
Does anyone else get something different?
Chlorides, barium, strontium and aluminum? I suppose that it was not as bad as water from the Great Salt Lake.
1. Re:A cube less than 6 meters on a side? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 18:09 · Score: 0
  
  Your calculation is correct. An actual 50,000 gallon tank looks like this
  Nobody needs to be executed over this. Some of the resident neckbeards need to calm the fuck down.
2. Re:A cube less than 6 meters on a side? by blackest_k · 2013-09-11 23:30 · Score: 1
  
  That could easily be the size of the tank that was opened and the water let drain away that day, the inspector called by. The other days there was no inspection and no evidence to present to a court.
  Could it be that this "spill" was a one off, a freak coincidence that the inspector called when it happened? Of course i am assuming the inspector witnessed the spillage and it wasn't the site operators who presented him with a record of the spillage from another day.
  Personally i hope the Inspector bought a lottery ticket that day because with that kind of luck he should now be relaxing on a beach somewhere.
  
  --
  Blarney Quality Restaurant, Plants
Why is this a slashdot story? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 17:40 · Score: 0

Why is this a slashdot story?
of course they will deny it by Skapare · 2013-09-11 18:16 · Score: 1

Most criminals will deny their crimes. We just have to figure out if someone removed the plug intentionally or if it was an accident and the plug came out on its own. But if it came out on its own, they are still liable for buying cheap plugs.

--
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
Should have kept quiet about that by WindBourne · 2013-09-11 22:13 · Score: 1

and instead visited more sites. It is possible that this was an exception, however, this might also be standard practice. Now, it will not be known.

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
This is what Pennsylvania Farmers have warned abou by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 22:27 · Score: 0

The corn wont grow & the cows get sick & die.
Oil & Gas & Fracking - but what are people going to eat when the land, soil, & water table is poisoned ?
You don't have to be a hemp wrapped tree hugger to realize killing your surroundings is gonna have a real bad impact upon your self.
No negligent conduct? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 22:52 · Score: 0

Letting that much wastewater leak because of a missing plug in your equipment is at the VERY LEAST negligent.
Remove the soil? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 23:26 · Score: 0

Remove the soil? And put it where? On the moon?
1. Re:Remove the soil? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-12 13:22 · Score: 0
  
  Make the responsible party eat it spoonful, by spoonful, until it is all gone.
TCODB by ThatsNotPudding · 2013-09-11 23:50 · Score: 1

The fines will merely paid from the budget entry titled: The Cost Of Doing Business.

Dollar-wise, it's right below the amount spent on office chairs.
hauled away by ThatsNotPudding · 2013-09-11 23:57 · Score: 1

They're not going to risk "dumping" wastewater to save a few bucks on having it hauled away.
Yes, 'hauled away'... somewhere... somewhere else... someone else's problem...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuyahoga_River#Environmental_concerns
1. Re:hauled away by fl!ptop · 2013-09-12 02:13 · Score: 1
  
  'hauled away'... somewhere... somewhere else... someone else's problem...
  Around here, it's hauled to a treatment facility or to a location where it's deep-well injected. It's not like they haul it away to someplace else where they then dump it on the ground.
  
  --
  When you recognize love in another and realize how precious it is, everything else seems so insignificant.
Nothing about it was only 50,000 gal by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-12 00:02 · Score: 0

They noted that the bung was missing. No idea how long or if this happens in other dumps for the waste.
50,000 is all they can attest to.
But take copyright law here as an example. The statutory damages are 250k because when the warehouse is nearly empty of stuff they pirated and sold, you can't prove that they pirated more than the number of disks still on warehouse shelves.
Same here. All we have is this incident.
NOTHING about this being the maximum release.
1. Re:Nothing about it was only 50,000 gal by MightyYar · 2013-09-12 00:12 · Score: 1
  
  NOTHING about this being the maximum release.
  That's a good point. But I can't guess better than the grand jury.
  
  --
  W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
The plug was left out, that is negligent by h4rr4r · 2013-09-12 00:42 · Score: 2

Not maintaining your equipment is pretty much the definition of negligence.
1. Re:The plug was left out, that is negligent by thegarbz · 2013-09-12 19:27 · Score: 1
  
  Depends on their maintenance regime. If an inspector turned up and found no maintenance or inspection regime, no records, and a plant that is falling apart, that is negligent. If the inspector turns up and finds everything checks out almost perfectly save for this one plug that was missed that's not negligent, that just happens on large scale plants. Anyone who thinks it is in any way easy to track every single plug in every single piece of equipment can only be considered insane or ignorant of how complicated some of these plants can be.
  Hell Chevron had a major fire a few years ago at a refinery due to corrosion on a pipeline deadleg which was being actively monitored for corrosion in several points. Shit really does happen.
Instead of fines by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-12 01:55 · Score: 0

Instead of making them just pay effectively putting a price on the spill that may or may not have good ROI, EPA should make them:
1. improve equipment inspections so things like that do not repeat
2. install electronic sensors to detect leaks early
3. make the inspections more frequent and have the company pay for it
Wtek by Dietunio · 2013-09-12 01:55 · Score: 1

Ultra Slim To jest rodzaj dziaalnoci powinnimy si cigania i nakadania kar. Nie Syria, niech zabijaj si nawzajem, jeli chc, pozwala nie zniechca do obu stron, zrzucajc bomby i zabijajc niewinnych ludzi (co si zdarza). Nie palaczy pot i hodowców. Nie lil Suzy mp3 torrenter. Nie Aaron Swartz. Nie Snowden.
What is a "Cleanup"? by Squidlips · 2013-09-12 02:00 · Score: 1

Doesn't "Cleanup" just mean paying some mafia truckers to move the waste to another place such as, usually, a landfill?
we can jail the subcontractors while the people at by Joe_Dragon · 2013-09-12 02:18 · Score: 1

we can jail the subcontractors while the people at the top get a big bonus
You're all assuming this was done by XTO by RogueWarrior65 · 2013-09-12 02:36 · Score: 1

Seriously, you are all assuming that this was not only done by XTO, not only done intentionally, but also done under orders from Exxon management. How do you know that this wasn't done by some radical luddite with the express purpose of casting dispersions on the company, the drilling tech, and fossil fuels in general? You can spout off all you want but the fact of the matter is that you weren't there and you don't have any documents that show the plug removal was ordered so you can't say for sure who is to blame.
Not Helping by starshinecruzer · 2013-09-12 02:37 · Score: 1

>“There was no intentional, reckless or negligent misconduct by XTO.”'
Do they realize that just leaves stupidity?
Sounds like progress by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-12 04:49 · Score: 0

So a swimming pool's worth of dirty water escaped. That is what constitutes an environmental disaster these days. Sounds like progress to me.
Don't read fark I see by rsilvergun · 2013-09-12 12:52 · Score: 1

Or Salon. The tea party was a bought and paid for made up movement by the rich to push their agenda of low taxes, no regulation and no social safety net. They had tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars behind them. Christ, Fox news used to run stories about 'spontaneous' tea-party gatherings a week in advance.

OWS was a real grass roots movement. And like all grass roots movements it was relentlessly pounded into the ground. My favorite part was when they used the Patriot Act to mobilize local law enforcement against it. Remember when we got promised it would never be used on US soil? Yeah, nobody else did either...

--
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/