• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Exxon Mobil Settles $9 Billion New Jersey Environmental Case for $250 Million

Perhaps the damages sought weren't based in reality. Considering the settlement, possibility could very well be that NJ's assessment for damages wasn't solid or grossly exaggerated. .

Or not.
 
Or so. The idea of a government entity suing for damages at exaggerated levels is hardly unprecedented.

Nor is a company stating the damages are over blown. That works both ways.
 
This deal still has to be approved by the judge. What will be interesting is if the judge doesn't approve because the settlement paid was too low, or approves but has doubts on why NJ made a deal for such a low amount just before the judge was set to make a ruling on the case.

Then the questions will fly. And it will hurt Christie big time. He makes a bad deal which will mean the taxpayers will pick up most of the bill to clean up Exxon's mess? That's not going to look good to people on either side.
 
Nor is a company stating the damages are over blown. That works both ways.

It sure does. Part of the game. However, unless there is something to show otherwise, it would certainly appear, based on the NJ's willingness to settle is that its certainly the latter. Unless you have some conclusive evidence that nefarious influence caused the decision.
 
Apparently the state of New Jersey doesn't think so, or they wouldn't have settled for that amount.

No. I'm not into conspiracy theories.
Unless they're about unions buying government votes.

Not trying to get us off-topic, but your position comes across as hypocritical based on your views in other threads.
 
It sure does. Part of the game. However, unless there is something to show otherwise, it would certainly appear, based on the NJ's willingness to settle is that its certainly the latter. Unless you have some conclusive evidence that nefarious influence caused the decision.

No I am just going on past experiences on deals between Govt's and Billion $ Businesses.
How often does it work to a fair deal for the Govt.
 
Sweet deal for Exxon.
Roughly 3.5 % of what was asked in damages.
Appears the taxpayer takes it up the .........
Thoughts are?
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/28/n...column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

A long-fought legal battle to recover $8.9 billion in damages from Exxon Mobil Corporation for the contamination and loss of use of more than 1,500 acres of wetlands, marshes, meadows and waters in northern New Jersey has been quietly settled by the state for around $250 million.

The lawsuits, filed by the State Department of Environmental Protection in 2004, had been litigated by the administrations of four New Jersey governors, finally advancing last year to trial. By then, Exxon’s liability was no longer in dispute; the only issue was how much it would pay in damages.
Exxon Mobil must have made Christie an offer he couldn't refuse: two coupons to an All-You-Can-Eat Buffet!!!
 
Exxon Mobil must have made Christie an offer he couldn't refuse: two coupons to an All-You-Can-Eat Buffet!!!

This deal, documentation and all should become part of the public record. Then people can see if they need to see a Proctologist.
It only hurts going in.
 
Unless they're about unions buying government votes.

Not trying to get us off-topic, but your position comes across as hypocritical based on your views in other threads.

The "what if" I was commenting on warranted my response. Unions buying government votes I have been commenting on in the other threads is a well documented fact. There is no theory involved.

I think you're reaching here.
 
Last owner is stuck with the bill. Exxon can always try to go after past owners.
But 3.5 cents on the dollar compared to damages asked.

From the article:

The damage to the Bayonne and Linden (known as Bayway) sites dated back many years. “Contamination of the land and water at the Bayway and Bayonne refineries began as early as the 1870s in Bayonne and the early 1900s in Bayway and continues to this day,” the state’s expert report says.

Now why is the "last owner stuck with the bill"?
 
Now why is the "last owner stuck with the bill"?

I don't know for sure, I don't know if there is a way to find out who started polluting there 1st. But, Standard oil, to Esso, to Exxon, to Exxon-Mobile. There's a chance it might have been all the same company.

And even if is wasn't the same company the whole time I think how much polluting was done by a certain company should matter too. Even if Exxon-Mobile didn't pollute that area since day 1, if they did for 50-60 years then they should foot most of the bill.
 
I don't know for sure, I don't know if there is a way to find out who started polluting there 1st. But, Standard oil, to Esso, the Exxon, to Exxon-Mobile. There's a chance it might have been all the same company.

Andeven it is wasn't I think how much polluting was done by a certain company should matter too. Even if Exxon-Mobile didn't pollute that area since day 1, if they did for 50-60 years then they should foot most of the bill.

I totally agree that they should pay for the time that they polluted there which has been I believe since the early 1900s (when Rockefeller opened the Bayway Refinery). I don't agree with the claim "the last owner is stuck with the bill". If it turns out my house is sitting on a former Love Canal type of land, I don't expect to be stuck with the bill.
 
From the article:

The damage to the Bayonne and Linden (known as Bayway) sites dated back many years. “Contamination of the land and water at the Bayway and Bayonne refineries began as early as the 1870s in Bayonne and the early 1900s in Bayway and continues to this day,” the state’s expert report says.

Now why is the "last owner stuck with the bill"?
Due diligence. Was known to be polluted. Just the way it works. Last one at the table gets the bill.
 
Due diligence. Was known to be polluted. Just the way it works. Last one at the table gets the bill.

Can you cite the law that says that I'm responsible to pay for a clean up of a spill on my property that predates my purchase by 100 years?
 
Can you cite the law that says that I'm responsible to pay for a clean up of a spill on my property that predates my purchase by 100 years?

are you the owner of the property?
is it environmentally contaminated, such that its contamination can affect other properties in the area?
then you are liable for the environmental clean-up that is required under the environmental laws

now, if you can establish that the former owner of the property knowingly withheld knowledge of the contamination at the time of the property ownership transfer, you can go to court to recover damages from that property. which damages accrued to you by virtue of the transfer of the real property into your name
 
Due diligence. Was known to be polluted. Just the way it works. Last one at the table gets the bill.

i've had clients who backed out of otherwise lucrative real estate transactions only because they became aware that the adverse environmental condition of their property - and its need for remediation - would become exposed to the state environmental staff prior to any transfer. the prospective buyer required an environmental assessment as part of its due diligence and all such findings must be communicated to the state environmental office by the entity performing the evaluation
the owners realized the cost of remediation would far exceed the market value of the underlying real property and refused to authorize an assessment, instead holding the property while also abandoning it until hey could find a sucker willing to acquire it without such environmental survey
 
If this is true this pretty much kills what little chance Christie had to be the GOP nominee. Even Republicans should be very pissed that the taxpayer got stuck with the cleanup bill because Christie stepped in to give Exxon a sweet deal. This guy suppose to be protecting the taxpayer? Yet he instead protects one of the most profitable corporations in the world.

Even more troubling are the circumstances surrounding the decision, which recently came to light. As a judge deliberated whether to assess the $8.9 billion in damages New Jersey sought, the administration stepped in and agreed to take about $250 million and settle the case.

Former colleagues of mine in state government, where I served as commissioner of environmental protection from 2002 to 2006, have told me that Mr. Christie’s chief counsel inserted himself into the case, elbowed aside the attorney general and career employees who had developed and prosecuted the litigation, and cut the deal favorable to Exxon.

snip.

One would think that Mr. Christie would have kept his immediate political staff at a distance from these negotiations.

While he was chairman of the Republican Governors Association in 2014, the group received $500,000 from Exxon and more from company employees. While this was not Exxon’s first contribution to the group, this donation was made at a time when the New Jersey trial was pending.

If nothing else, the optics, as they say in politics, look bad. Had the governor or his staff stayed away from the case, they would have avoided the obvious and unseemly inference that the settlement had something to do with the contribution.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/05/opinion/chris-christies-exxon-settlement-is-bad-for-new-jersey.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=c-column-top-span-region&region=c-column-top-span-region&WT.nav=c-column-top-span-region&_r=0
 
Now we know the real reason for the quick settlement. Shameful! Just a short term fix to make the NJ budget look better for a year. More slight of hand by Christie at the expense of the tax payer.

Historically, under state law, money received from environmental settlements has to be used on environmental efforts. But last year the Christie administration snuck some language into the state budget that effectively overrode this. For this fiscal year — and potentially this fiscal year only — the first $50 million of any environmental settlement will go toward environmental programs; anything above that can be diverted to plug holes in the state’s general fund.

This meant there was great pressure for the state to settle the case now for whatever it could get, rather than wait — possibly for years — for the much larger amount likely to have been awarded by the judge.
 
Back
Top Bottom