Exxon Still Isn’t Complying With Climate Subpoenas, New York Says

By | June 21, 2018

  • June 21, 2018 at 1:18 pm
    Old Lawman says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 7
    Thumb down 2

    Sounds like the FBI/Justice Dept.

    • June 26, 2018 at 4:11 pm
      Agent says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 1
      Thumb down 1

      Rosenstein hasn’t given up subpoenad documents either. Looks like a stand off.

      • June 26, 2018 at 5:34 pm
        Captain Planet says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 1
        Thumb down 1

        Article isn’t about Rosenstein. Why don’t you head over to El Rushbo’s website to share your off-topic bull$hit?

  • June 21, 2018 at 1:36 pm
    Craig Cornell says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 7
    Thumb down 5

    The Mafia tactics of the government to “stop” Climate Change.
    As if it would have any impact on Climate Change to sue Exxon. Pathetic, outrageous abuse of power.

    GO EXXON!

    • June 21, 2018 at 2:14 pm
      Rosenblatt says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 2
      Thumb down 5

      Sounds like someone doesn’t really understand what this case is about. It’s not about “stopping climate change” – it’s about a company intentionally lying for the sole purpose of misleading investors so they can reap ill-gained profits.

      • June 21, 2018 at 2:28 pm
        Craig Cornell says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 6
        Thumb down 3

        What planet do you live on? Seriously.

        This is ONLY about hurting a fossil fuel production company. Exxon investors don’t give a crap about Climate Change, and the actual “evidence” is that Exxon referenced the IPCC Reports when it made statements about Cllimate Change.

        Climate Change is going to hurt Exxon when? 100 years from now? No serious observer believes we will shed fossil fuels in any meaningful way for 30 years or more. And then the investors will mostly be dead.

        Man, you must play a lot of 3 card monty . . .

        • June 21, 2018 at 3:21 pm
          Rosenblatt says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 2
          Thumb down 4

          I live on the planet where this case is being heard. It is clear you didn’t bother reading this article, let alone do any research into the crux of this suit. Let me break down the article into concise parts for your edification.

          *Exxon hasn’t complied with subpoenas for cash-flow projections reflecting how it used so-called proxy costs

          *The proxy cost is supposed to assure investors…..

          *The state has said Exxon may use two sets of proxy costs, one for public use and one for internal applications, according to the filing.

          *That distinction had not been disclosed in Exxon’s public representations

          *And failed to disclose that the company maintained a second, internal set of proxy costs that were lower

          *The state….[said] it found “significant evidence” that Exxon may have misled investors about how the proxy cost is applied

          So it’s like I said — this is (allegedly) about a company intentionally lying for the sole purpose of misleading investors so they can reap ill-gained profits.

          • June 21, 2018 at 3:33 pm
            Craig Cornell says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 5
            Thumb down 3

            The case is about Climate Change. You listed a bunch of “proxy” nonsense that has nothing to do with the case.

          • June 21, 2018 at 4:13 pm
            Rosenblatt says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 4

            If you sincerely think the proxy piece and Exxon intentionally misrepresenting facts just to boost their profits has “nothing to do with the case”, there’s no point in continuing to try to discuss this with you.

          • June 22, 2018 at 10:32 am
            Agent says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 4
            Thumb down 3

            8 paragraphs of nothing. Get off Exxon’s back. They are doing great and they pay their taxes.

          • June 22, 2018 at 11:59 am
            Rosenblatt says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 3

            If you have an issue with my “8 paragraphs”, take it up with the author since I copied those lines directly from the article.

          • June 25, 2018 at 2:32 pm
            bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 0

            The way I read this is Exxon is perhaps 10%-20% afraid that climate change regulations may get out of control, but does not want to spook their investors, and so thus have an internal worst case scenario estimate of regulations outside of what they think will actually likely occur. I couldn’t see it going vice versa (better regulation costs in secret, worse in public), it wouldn’t make sense, though the article doesn’t actually do a good job of stating the scenario.

            If internally they say “Let’s be careful and assume this just in case” it would make sense to do so and not scare the investors, while outwardly assuming a better scenario so they can prepare.

            Prepare for the worst so to speak without spooking all your investors away. The only other action here is: Spook your investors, which could shake the markets. Business folks prepare like this. They shouldn’t be in court over it.

          • June 25, 2018 at 4:00 pm
            Rosenblatt says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 1

            That’s a lot of conjecture bob. I *guess* we could sit here and try to guess what they were thinking all day long, but that won’t get us anywhere except “I think vs you think” with nothing to support either argument.

            Q: If your theory is true, what’s stopping Exxon from coming out and say “ya know, here’s why there are multiple reports – it’s perfectly legal and logical, and here’s our evidence”?

            I mean … if your theory is true, Exxon has nothing to hide and they should provide the records in accordance with the subpoenas!

            What makes more sense in light of all the actions Exxon has taken in this case:

            1) Exxon did things completely legally with logic and good intentions and therefore has evidence to prove their case … … … yet they continue to refuse to comply with subpoenas, or

            2) Exxon has something to hide and is therefore not complying with the subpoenas?

          • June 25, 2018 at 7:28 pm
            bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 0

            “That’s a lot of conjecture bob.”

            Same to you.

            “I *guess* we could sit here and try to guess what they were thinking all day long, but that won’t get us anywhere except “I think
            vs you think” with nothing to support either argument.”

            Same to you.

            “Q: If your theory is true, what’s stopping Exxon from coming out and say “ya know, here’s why there are multiple reports – it’s perfectly legal and logical, and here’s our evidence”? ”

            Easy answer here: Bad law. If I’m correct, the law needs to be changed. I said this doesn’t belong in court if what I said is true. They are making separate preparations due to worst case scenario. If you need to have regulations that any of your predictions need to be in one of two public reports, that’s a bad law, which is why I said the mandated shake your markets isn’t ok. I just said it in a way you cannot understand.

            “I mean … if your theory is true, Exxon has nothing to hide and they should provide the records in accordance with the subpoenas!
            What makes more sense in light of all the actions Exxon has taken in this case: ”

            Or we shouldn’t have absurd laws which try to make sure a company is considered to be defrauding people for having a non public worst case scenario schedule on file. Let’s say this is the “If Trump is impeached and democrats take control” plan. This seems to suggest they are limited to 2. It’s a stupid regulation. The “It Trump is impeached and democrats take control” plan, shouldn’t land them in hot water. There are upwards of 50 scenarios which could happen with different costs. That’s on the low end. If the law limits 2, it’s stupid law.

            “1) Exxon did things completely legally with logic and good intentions and therefore has evidence to prove their case … … … yet they continue to refuse to comply with subpoenas, or
            2) Exxon has something to hide and is therefore not complying with the subpoenas?”

            This is by far the more ignorant assessment, and you’re the one doing it not me. You just assume that the government is right and the laws should be the way they are?

            This shows me too much about you, and it’s why I don’t often agree to debate you. If you don’t have the know how, don’t argue.

            You clearly don’t.

            This right here, just trust the laws work the way they do, why not apply that to the current case with regards to immigration and Trump? Eh? Would you say that if families were detained together and it was considered legal that we should just go with it? This is a recent example. There is an obvious answer. Both you and Ron in the last week have done the “it’s perfectly constitutional” in his case, and now “They must not be following the law” on your case.

          • June 25, 2018 at 7:29 pm
            bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 0

            I guess if it has to do with business just assume the worst.

            It seems to be your logic here.

            It’s shameful. You’re not Dumbledore’s army. You’re not fighting Voldemort in the form of Exxon. The world rarely works like that.

          • June 26, 2018 at 8:06 am
            Rosenblatt says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 1

            Rosenblatt: Q: If your theory is true, what’s stopping Exxon from [complying with the subpoena and arguing what they did was legal]?

            Bob: Easy answer here: Bad law.

            Well, if I ever get arrested, I want you as my attorney! You can successfully argue I should be found not guilty because whatever I law I broke was simply a “bad law”?

            Come on. You can’t seriously be saying it would be accepted in a court setting that if someone broke the law, it’s all good … as long as it’s a bad law.

        • June 21, 2018 at 3:38 pm
          Jack Kanauph says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 6
          Thumb down 3

          If I was Exxon, I wouldn’t hand over the docs either. The democrat controlled state of NY is attacking Exxon simply to hi-lite their global warming agenda. Mr. Cornell is correct.

    • June 21, 2018 at 2:28 pm
      Captain Planet says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 1
      Thumb down 5

      Craig,
      That is not at all what the article is about. Did you even read it?

      JUNE 19, 2018 AT 4:07 PM
      Craig Cornell says:
      LIKE OR DISLIKE:
      1
      1
      Wow. Now that’s some scary thinking.

  • June 25, 2018 at 2:41 pm
    Sam says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    It is New York!
    EXXON:
    In response to subpoenas, the company has provided at least 400,000 documents totaling millions of pages. But the filings argue that more are needed to determine the accuracy of Exxon’s calculations about how future regulations aimed at reducing greenhouse-gas emissions would affect the value of its investments.
    Exxon Mobil has argued in court that the attorneys general of New York and Massachusetts are conducting a “highly politicized and bad-faith investigation.” The company, accused of conspiring to cloud the issue of climate change through surrogate groups, argues that the investigators are conspirators because they consulted with environmentalists, including the Rockefeller family.
    Mr. Schneiderman has said that his efforts constitute a straightforward securities fraud investigation like those he has undertaken concerning Wall Street companies and another climate change suit that led to a 2015 settlement with Peabody Energy.

    NEW YORK: 2016 Post article
    New York State’s debt is way higher than announced

    • June 27, 2018 at 6:09 pm
      bob says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 0
      Thumb down 0

      And then we get this. Good post. Clearly New York is going over the top on this one.



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*