Slashdot Mirror


Oil Companies Secretly Got Paid Twice For Cleaning Up Toxic Fuel Leaks

Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes "Mica Rosenberg reports at Reuters that major oil companies including Chevron, Exxon, ConocoPhillips, Phillips 66, and Sunoco were paid twice for dealing with leaks from underground fuel storage tanks — once from government funds and again, secretly, from insurance companies. Court documents show many of the cases and settlement agreements follow a similar pattern, accusing the oil companies of 'double-dipping' by collecting both special state funds and insurance money for the same tank cleanups. Some states say any insurance payouts should have gone to them since they covered the cost of the work. 'It appears this was a really common practice and it's very disconcerting,' says Colorado Attorney General John Suthers. 'Basically the companies were defrauding the state.' Approximately 40 states and the District of Columbia have special funds to cover the costs of removing and replacing the old tanks, excavating tainted dirt and pumping out dirty groundwater. Since 1988, there have been more than half a million leaky tanks reported across the country. Nearly 80,000 spills still are waiting to be cleaned up. The lawsuits against the oil companies allege fraud or other civil, not criminal, claims, which have a lower burden of proof and do not lead to jail time. Companies are largely cooperating to forge settlement deals and were interested in partnering with the states to clean up the legacy of petroleum leaks. For example Phillips 66 paid Utah $2 million to resolve allegations that the oil company defrauded a state fund to the tune of $25 million for cleanups associated with leaking underground tanks. Phillips sued myriad insurers over coverage for contamination arising from leaking tanks around the country and Phillips 66 wound up collecting $286 million from its insurers to resolve these disputes, but it never divulged any of this to Utah officials, the suit alleged. 'When I first saw these cases, I thought this is kind of incredible,' says New Mexico assistant attorney general Seth Cohen, who handled the lawsuit for the state. 'The oil companies have, in effect, profited off polluting.'"

29 of 113 comments (clear)

  1. Oh my GOD! by oscrivellodds · · Score: 5, Insightful

    'The oil companies have, in effect, profited off polluting.'

    Doh!

    1. Re: Oh my GOD! by binarylarry · · Score: 2

      This sounds like a job for Captain Planet!

      --
      Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
    2. Re:Oh my GOD! by WPIDalamar · · Score: 2

      No, it's analogous to a software firm that releases a virus and gets paid to clean it up.

    3. Re: Oh my GOD! by bdeclerc · · Score: 4, Funny

      Money!

    4. Re:Oh my GOD! by operagost · · Score: 4, Informative

      Lawyers have profited off lies and hyperbole.

      These aren't tanks at some Chevron or Sunoco refinery. These are tanks buried at the POS, i.e. a gas station. Most are over 40 years old, and far past their expected lifetime. They should have been removed before they became a problem, but I presume the parties in question abandoned the property or otherwise did not take responsibility. Therefore, the oil companies-- as experts in the area-- were contracted.

      So the oil companies are profiting off POLLUTION, but not profiting off "polluting", which implies they are somehow responsible. Regardless, if they're double-dipping I find it unlikely they are doing so inadvertently and thus they're still engaging in unethical activity.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    5. Re:Oh my GOD! by bberens · · Score: 2

      Those gas stations probably have a big Chevron or Sunoco sign out front. I understand the concept of franchising but I don't think it's entirely out of line to assume the parent company assumes some responsibility for the pollution at their franchise stores.

      --
      Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com
  2. Why gouv pay for it in the first place? by JcMorin · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If an oil company do a mess, they are responsible to clean it. If they have insurance fine for them, why we gouv need to pay them for their messed up?

    1. Re:Why gouv pay for it in the first place? by hoboroadie · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Their investments in the legislative sector are paying off.

      --
      They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
    2. Re:Why gouv pay for it in the first place? by Richard_at_work · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Its not their mess, its tanks owned by third parties:

      Often built for gas stations during the 1950s and '60s highway construction boom, the tanks corroded over time, spilling gas and diesel with potentially cancer-causing chemicals under properties and into aquifers.

      The oil companies are paid to clean up the pollution caused by these tanks constructed for, operated and owned by third parties. The oil companies are chosen because they already have extensive inhouse expertise on the subject, so they are ideal for doing it wholesale.

      Chances are, most of these tanks have been abandoned and their original owners do not exist, which is why local government step in.

    3. Re:Why gouv pay for it in the first place? by Richard_at_work · · Score: 4, Informative

      Putting aside the issue of double dipping for a second, the liability for the cost of the clean-up still resides with the original insurer or chain of insurers who covered the facility (including the tank) in the first place.

      The oil companies were given the authority to carry out the clean up, which also grants them the authority to submit the costs to the insurance company - this isn't a simple case of the oil company doing something and then demanding money from a third party for it, there is a chain of liability, a chain of authority and both meet at the insurance companies door.

      Its very very similar to your car dumping oil all over the road, and the local authority towing your vehicle and paying for the environmental cleanup - you will definitely get a bill at the end of the day, and where I live that bill comes from the company the responsibility to do said actions is delegated to, not the local authority.

      In reality, it should have been the government chasing the insurance companies to force them to do the cleanup in the first place, but they didn't.

      And, as I said, the issue of double dipping is entirely not represented in this explanation - that's another issue entirely.

    4. Re:Why gouv pay for it in the first place? by Bartles · · Score: 2

      When a person in Louisiana has their house destroyed by a hurricane, are they double dipping when they receive an insurance settlement and also accept government assistance? No?

    5. Re:Why gouv pay for it in the first place? by stox · · Score: 2

      The majority of those stations were built and owned by the oil companies. They later moved to a different model and sold the stations to third parties. Once the issue of laking tanks was discovered, it turns out that many/most of those stations had negative value ( ie. the cost to clean-up was greater than the value of the gas station ). How convenient the oil companies had just completed divesting themselves of these stations when the problems were discovered.

      The oil companies screw the American Public yet again.

      --
      "To those who are overly cautious, everything is impossible. "
  3. Crime pays, this is merely proof. by canadiannomad · · Score: 2, Insightful

    For example Phillips 66 paid Utah $2 million to resolve allegations that the oil company defrauded a state fund to the tune of $25 million for cleanups associated with leaking underground tanks.

    This is why corporate crime pays in the current world :S

    --
    Hmm, the humour and sarcasm seem to have been be lost on you.
    1. Re:Crime pays, this is merely proof. by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah I'm thinking this is backwards. You defrauded the state $25M? Well you owe the state $25M, plus interest, plus overhead, plus punitive damages for being a dickhead. A settlement would be $25M--break even--at the very least; you want it to be a little bit more so that a high incidence of getting caught can lead to a poor ROI (i.e. if you have a 1 in 50 chance of netting $25M and otherwise it costs you $2M, you're $73M short in the long run per 50 suits). This settlement is bullshit.

  4. Depends... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Some states require all insurance policies stack to cover an event, rather than there being "primary" and "secondary" insurance. Many times governments will take out insurance policies of their own to cover things like this, naming the oil company as the beneficiary. The oil company may also have its own insurance. Depending on the laws having jurisdiction over the event, one or both insurance companies must pay the full amount of the claim.

    If I buy two life insurance policies for myself, and I die, they both have to pay.

    Similarly, a policy of any kind underwritten in the US MUST pay even in the face of multiple other policies underwritten overseas.

  5. Government funds for clean ups? by HnT · · Score: 2

    Why do gigantic oil companies like that get government money to clean up the mess these companies themselves carelessly created in the first place? It is their fault these spills happened, they should be held fully responsible for what they did.

    --
    "Only one thing is impossible for God: To find any sense in any copyright law on the planet." - Mark Twain
    1. Re:Government funds for clean ups? by ErroneousBee · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Because there is no reward for good behaviour.

      In BP's case, they made a decision to fund the cleanup and compensate people and businesses. And every fraud and shyster crawled out of the woodwork and started demanding compensation. They get no credit for putting their hands up, while US companies Transocean and Haliburton were busy hiding behind lawyers and shredding the evidence and getting away with it.

      --
      **TODO** Steal someone elses sig.
  6. Welfare Queens by Ice+Tiger · · Score: 2

    Meet another example of the new US Welfare Queens.

    --
    "Because we are not employing at entry level, offshoring will kill our industry stone dead."
  7. In the US, cleanup costs are never factored in. by Kazoo+the+Clown · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Why do you think gas is so cheap? In the good old US of A, industrial cleanup is simply not factored into the cost of doing business. Whether fossil fuel, nuclear, plastics or any chemistry based business, cleanup is "someone else's problem.". Even hard drive manufacture-- though that's no longer done in the US largely because of the dreaded "regulations" which at least for that, have caught up with them. I bought a bunch of file cabinets once from a liquidation sale of a hard drive company, that still had the files in it from the building maintenance guy-- it was an endless array of citations for dumping the nickel water from the plating operations-- you could see the entire history of what happened. They then started trucking it in tanker trucks offsite (all the bills for that were there), then they got cited for what they did with that, finally it got so expensive tomdeal with they went out of business. This was in the 1980s/1990s. Now they'd probably get some Republican asshole to whine about overregulation and get the regs removed while the neighbors start suffering the effects of nickel in their drinking water.

    1. Re:In the US, cleanup costs are never factored in. by amiga3D · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There you go getting all political. This is a bipartisan issue, the oil companies don't give a shit which party they bribe. Regulation isn't the answer. Enforcement is the answer. These assholes broke all kinds of laws but look, they aren't going to be punished for it! Making laws and regulations will do nothing if you can't even enforce the ones you have in place.

    2. Re:In the US, cleanup costs are never factored in. by jfengel · · Score: 2

      Except that the same party that opposes creation of regulations also opposes enforcement. The like to cut the EPA's budget, and appoint judges who favor businesses. They're the party who demand apologies when the government does attempt to enforce regulations even after the fact.

      The other party is certainly far from guiltless, but there's only one party that makes a point out of making enforcement harder and harder. Enforcement requires effort, generally taking many years to achieve, and is frequently fruitless by the time corporate lawyers have circled the wagons. In that time, it's not uncommon for the executive branch to change hands and simultaneously change its mind about just how important it is to proceed.

      So yeah, it's a partisan issue. I won't forgive the blue party for its failures to prosecute, but I recognize that for them to take any action at all requires a supreme force of will and political capital against an opposing party whose primary goal is to thwart them. If the red party matched its zeal to deregulate with equal fervor in prosecuting those who violate remaining regulations, it might be different, but instead we're left with a party of "please do something, anything" to try to counter the party of "do nothing, ever". And since the separation of powers favors inaction, that's what we get.

  8. Don't go after the companies by MikeRT · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Go after the executives. The executives who do this care more about themselves than the company. The only solution is to focus entirely on the leaders who do this and put them in prison. If Deepwater Horizon had resulted in the Obama Administration filing Felony Murder charges against the executives who directed the safety standards to be ignored (and resulted in 11 oilmen dying), any bets that safety standards wouldn't suddenly become top priority? Same deal here.

    1. Re:Don't go after the companies by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This. Being an executive means (or should mean) being personally responsible for your actions, and that includes criminal charges for pulling stunts like this. Without the option of course to buy your own arse out of a lawsuit using corporate (shareholders) funds

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    2. Re:Don't go after the companies by amiga3D · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Exactly! Everyone is screaming for more regulation when the regulations in place now are totally ignored. Breaking the rules has to have consequences. If you just ignore all these infractions then why have regulations at all? Seriously, they're talking about making them pay back 10 cents on the dollar for what amounts to theft. The same legislative cocksuckers that rant about "stealing" movies. Download movies and go to jail, defraud millions and laugh all the way to the bank.

    3. Re:Don't go after the companies by laird · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Good point. Look at how when SOX made the officers of a company personally liable for incorrect financial statements that suddenly companies put financial controls in place. Personal liability is clearly a much better motivator than ethics or responsibility to shareholders.

  9. How is $2m a settlement a punishment? by laird · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If they defrauded the government of $25m, how is $2m a punishment that discourages fraud, since it leaves them $23m ahead? Shouldn't the penalty be, say, 3x the amount of the fraud, so that the cost of defrauding the government is far more than the benefit of committing fraud, enough more that the risk of getting caught and paying the penalty is far more than the benefit, and companies don't commit fraud because it's a bad risk?

  10. Lamar Smith and the EPA by andydread · · Score: 4, Informative

    And now folks you see why Lamar Smith wants to hobble the EPA.

    Meanwhile in North Carolina you have 30 year Duke Energy vetran Governor Pat McCrory who has been using the power of the govt in NC to sheild Duke Energy from lawsuits as a result of massive pollution. Spilling things like arsenic, lead, mercury and other things into NC waterways. In every single lawsuit the McCrory administration intervened and shut the lawsuits down. Now you have the lastest massive spill

  11. If I did it, I'd be in jail by erroneus · · Score: 2

    Insurance fraud is a big giant problem and more often criminal. But since this is another of those "too big to fail" organizations, we'll just have to let this one slip. The executives enabling and making this happen, of course, keep their bonuses and all that but there may be layoffs or raises may not come again this year.

  12. Corporate sociopaths by MikeRT · · Score: 2

    The main reason why corporate regulation doesn't work is that liberals haven't accepted the fact that if it's true that sociopaths thrive at the upper echelons today, the only cure is strict criminal law enforcement done against the perp not the company. Sociopaths, lacking empathy, don't give two shits about their company unless it affects them. Again, taking Deepwater Horizon as an example, the way to get a corporate sociopath to take it seriously isn't to threaten his company with a $20B fine but with a firing squad if his deliberate machinations result in employees getting killed.