Criticism of the petroleum industry

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page.

Companies in the petroleum-based energy industry generally draw a wide range of criticism, and are often referred to as Big Oil. Because of the inelasticity of demand of petroleum and the high risk nature of operations abroad, the companies involved in the industry have generally fallen into a large role in influencing economic and foreign policies in nations across the globe.

Much of the criticism centers around the concern that the burning of fossil fuels contributes to air pollution and global warming, and that extractive operations spoil natural landscapes. Large energy companies are often suspected of resisting alternative energy, though energy giant BP is the world's leading producer of solar panels (while the majority of its business, like the majority of the world's energy consumption, is in fossil fuels).

The following companies have been the subject of more specific criticism.

Contents 1 Criticism of ExxonMobil Corporation 2 Criticism of Chevron Corporation 3 See also 4 Notes

[edit] Criticism of ExxonMobil Corporation

ExxonMobil is occasionally accused of unethical business practices. [1] ExxonMobil has further alienated many people through public relations missteps and a corporate philosophy perceived as confrontational and "take no prisoners" in nature.

Allegations levied against the company include:

• Contributing to global warming as the largest (private) producer of combustible fuels which generate greenhouse gases;
• Intentional negligence and indifference to the environmental consequences of the Valdez disaster; [2]
• Underfunding its employee pension plan despite having enough cash on hand to fully fund the plan if it chose to; [3]
• Price gouging in the United States at a retail level; [4]
• Indifference to the needs of homosexual employees (In the US, domestic partner benefits were ended following Mobil's merger with Exxon); [5]
• Shortchanging retail fuel marketing and lubricants marketing partners (The marketers won a $1.4 billion judgment against ExxonMobil for anticompetitive practices in federal court in 2003); [6]
• Abuse of U.S. corporation law and perpetration of clever marketing schemes to avoid proper responsibility for its actions (For example, after the Valdez disaster, the company took the name "Exxon" out of its tanker shipping subsidiary, renaming it "SeaRiver Maritime," and giving it a separate (but wholly Exxon-controlled) corporate charter and board of directors. The former Exxon Valdez is now the "SeaRiver Mediterranean" and is legally owned by a small, allegedly undercapitalized, stand-alone company, which would have minimal ability to pay out on claims in the event of a further accident;[7]
• Human rights violations in the Indonesian territory of Aceh. In June 2001, ExxonMobil became the target of a lawsuit in the Federal District Court of the District of Columbia, under the Alien Tort Claims Act. The suit alleged that the company knowingly assisted human rights violations, including torture, murder and rape, by employing and providing material support to Indonesian military forces, who committed the alleged offenses in Aceh. Human rights complaints involving ExxonMobil's relationship with the Indonesian military first arose in 1992; the company denies these accusations and has filed a motion to dismiss the suit, which is still pending as of 2005; [8]
• Callous treatment and prejudicial termination of former Mobil employees in favor of their Exxon counterparts during and after the Exxon & Mobil merger;
• Violation of the Bribes & Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (ExxonMobil controls concessions covering 11 million acres (44,500 km²) off the coast of Angola that hold an estimated 7.5 billion barrels (1.2 km³) of crude; [9] Questions have been raised about ExxonMobil's actions in securing these concessions—Forbes Magazine alleging that "ExxonMobil handed hundreds of millions of dollars to the corrupt regime of President José Eduardo dos Santos in the late 1990s". [10]; and
• Trade in violation of economic sanctions against regimes hostile to the United States (In 2003, the Office of Foreign Assets Control reported that ExxonMobil engaged in illegal trade with Sudan and along with dozens of other companies had to settle with the United States government for US$50,000 [11].)
• In August of 2006, the Wall Street Journal alleged DCI Group, a marketing firm with ties to ExxonMobil, was the creator of an astroturfed Internet video disparaging Al Gore and An Inconvenient Truth. ^[12].

[edit] Criticism of Chevron Corporation

In 1992, 777 women filed a class-action suit against Chevron for discrimination and tolerating sexual harassment at Chevron Information Technology Company in San Ramon. In 1995, they settled the harassment claim for $2.2 million. Chevron settled the rest of the charges for $7.42 million. ^{[citation needed]}

"Mother's Day Massacre" : In 1993, the day before Mother's Day, Ortho, a joint division of Chevron and Monsanto, fired more than 60 sales people, 90 percent of them over 40-years-old. Forty-three of the employees sued Chevron and Monsanto for age discrimination. They settled for $18.3 million. ^{[citation needed]}

On May 28, 1998, as activists were staging a demonstration on an oil platform in the Niger Delta, Nigeria, Nigerian police and soldiers, instead of Chevron representatives (as the activists expected), were flown in with Chevron helicopters. Soldiers shot at the activists and subsequently two activists (Jola Ogungbeje and Aroleka Irowaninu) died from their wounds [13]. This incident was first reported in the Democracy Now! radio piece, Drilling and Killing.

The Nigerian government is reportedly 80% dependent upon oil production and is condemned by many for its reported [14] treatment of environmentalists.

In Ecuador, Chevron is accused by five indigenous groups of having dumped 18 billion gallons of toxic-laden water, a by product of drilling, on to their ancestral lands in the Amazon rainforest. The dumping alledgedly has caused cancer rates in the area to increase significantly and has displaced the local groups, thereby undermining their cultural identity. This accusation is currently the subject of a class action lawsuit in Ecuador, where damages are estimated by the plaintiffs to be over $6 billion. The lawsuit is being litigated by a team of lawyers from Ecuador and the U.S. www.amazonwatch.org.

Chevron had ten refinery accidents in ten years at their refinery in Richmond, CA. ^{[citation needed]} The 10th accident occurred on 25 March 1999, when there was an explosion in one of the hydrocracking units, sending several hundred people to local hospitals with smoke-related injuries. ^[1] The county's emergency warning sirens did not fire for 20 minutes after the explosion. ^[2]

Unocal, a Chevron subsidiary, has also been involved in controversy connected to a pipeline in Myanmar owned jointly by Unocal and Total S. A. ^{[citation needed]}

Communities for a Better Environment sued Chevron, Unocal (also an initiative funder), and other oil companies for polluting Latino and African-American communities in Los Angeles.

Some criticism of Chevron in particular stems from specific allegations of environmental wrongdoing. In 1992, Chevron was convicted of criminal violations of federal environmental law due to pollution in wastewater beyond permitted levels. The company paid $8,000,000 in monetary penalties. [15]

[edit] See also

• UK fuel protests
• Petroleum politics

[edit] Notes