B-Man Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 A Remarkable Court Opinion in Chevron Case Chevron, which some years back was presented with a multi-billion-dollar judgment related to pollution claims in Ecuador, has been engaged in a years-long battle against a coalition of lawyers, environmental groups, and activists, and its defense has been an interesting one: Not only has Chevron rejected the specific claims against it, it has maintained that the case is the result of a criminal conspiracy involving those same lawyers and environmentalists, corrupt judges, bribery, and more. The company’s general counsel, Hewitt Pate, said today: “The case against Chevron was the result of fraud, bribery, and other crimes, and its aim was extortion.” The story might have struck many as too implausible even for a B movie, but a U.S. district court today issued a remarkable opinion confirming that the judgment against Chevron is indeed the result of fraud. (The complete, 500-page opinion is here.) So, the case against Chevron (evil oil company) was not only bogus, but was actually a criminal conspiracy Hollywood would make a movie out of this story, if only the good guys weren't an oil company & the bad guys weren't enviro activists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 So, the case against Chevron (evil oil company) was not only bogus, but was actually a criminal conspiracy Hollywood would make a movie out of this story, if only the good guys weren't an oil company & the bad guys weren't enviro activists. Oh, they'll still make the movie. They'll just change which side was involved in the criminal conspiracy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 So, the case against Chevron (evil oil company) was not only bogus, but was actually a criminal conspiracy Hollywood would make a movie out of this story, if only the good guys weren't an oil company & the bad guys weren't enviro activists. The Judge didn't rule on the merits of the case, he just ruled the process was corrupt, correct? And I'm not saying I agree or disagree with the accusations of misconduct Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 The Judge didn't rule on the merits of the case, he just ruled the process was corrupt, correct? And I'm not saying I agree or disagree with the accusations of misconduct (The complete, 500-page opinion is here.) Look it up, you lazy piece of ****. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 The Judge didn't rule on the merits of the case, he just ruled the process was corrupt, correct? And I'm not saying I agree or disagree with the accusations of misconduct The story might have struck many as too implausible even for a B movie, but a U.S. district court today issued a remarkable opinion confirming that the judgment against Chevron is indeed the result of fraud. (The complete, 500-page opinion is here.) From post 321---you know, the one you are quoting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 Look it up, you lazy piece of ****. You mean in the media reports? I thought the media was against us Tom! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 You mean in the media reports? I thought the media was against us Tom! (The complete, 500-page opinion is here.) I've now spoon-fed you the primary source TWICE, you idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 Gatorman (Mr. Gumby): TOO NANY WORDS. MY BRAIN HURTS! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted March 6, 2014 Author Share Posted March 6, 2014 Look it up, you lazy piece of ****. See? It's as I said in the other thread. MSNBC/NYT/Media Matters has not produced a "Chevron Case" pellet yet, so, gatorman breaks, and starts throwing error messages. He needs the pellet. Otherwise, if you keep trying to run him with missing parameters, you're just going to get more error messaages. I say parameters, plural, because for a case like this? He's going to need more than 1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted March 8, 2014 Share Posted March 8, 2014 Keystone XL Would Swell U.S. Pipeline Coverage by . . . 0.033 Percent Regarding the Keystone XL Pipeline, Obama might have a logical leg on which to stand if KXL were the first such conduit to ravage the American heartland with miles and miles of rivets and steel. Alas for Obama, Meriwether Lewis and William Clark are long gone, and so is this country’s pipeline virginity. It lost its innocence, in that sense, in the same century when those explorers conducted their Corps of Discovery Expedition from St. Charles, Mo., to what is now Astoria, Ore., between May 1804 and September 1806. The first U.S. pipeline to transport oil started carrying crude from Coryville to Williamsport, Penn., in 1879. In the intervening 135 years, the continental USA became interlaced with 2,600,000 miles of these steel tubes. And how many more such miles would KXL add? A grand total of 852. That’s an increase of 0.033 percent, or the rough equivalent of delivering an extra faucet to the plumbing department at your local Home Depot. Believe it or not, this microscopic change in America’s pipeline profile fuels this massive controversy. If you are laughing, you are enjoying an unintentional comedy titled “I’m Thinking It Over,” starring Obama. Despite five neutral-to-positive reports from the State Department, he has spent five years and five weeks deeply contemplating KXL. Obama simply refuses to make up his mind and, instead, demands even further study. Now, you can offer Obama some food for thought. The public is welcome to suggest what America should do about KXL. Comments must be posted by tonight at 11:59 PM ET. They can be made online here. more at link: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 8, 2014 Share Posted March 8, 2014 Keystone XL Would Swell U.S. Pipeline Coverage by . . . 0.033 Percent Regarding the Keystone XL Pipeline, Obama might have a logical leg on which to stand if KXL were the first such conduit to ravage the American heartland with miles and miles of rivets and steel. Alas for Obama, Meriwether Lewis and William Clark are long gone, and so is this country’s pipeline virginity. It lost its innocence, in that sense, in the same century when those explorers conducted their Corps of Discovery Expedition from St. Charles, Mo., to what is now Astoria, Ore., between May 1804 and September 1806. The first U.S. pipeline to transport oil started carrying crude from Coryville to Williamsport, Penn., in 1879. In the intervening 135 years, the continental USA became interlaced with 2,600,000 miles of these steel tubes. And how many more such miles would KXL add? A grand total of 852. That’s an increase of 0.033 percent, or the rough equivalent of delivering an extra faucet to the plumbing department at your local Home Depot. Believe it or not, this microscopic change in America’s pipeline profile fuels this massive controversy. If you are laughing, you are enjoying an unintentional comedy titled “I’m Thinking It Over,” starring Obama. Despite five neutral-to-positive reports from the State Department, he has spent five years and five weeks deeply contemplating KXL. Obama simply refuses to make up his mind and, instead, demands even further study. Now, you can offer Obama some food for thought. The public is welcome to suggest what America should do about KXL. Comments must be posted by tonight at 11:59 PM ET. They can be made online here. more at link: WOW... Great post, I always wondered about this. Where I go 4 wheelin by my house, there are pipelines crisscrossing the area... I hope I don't hit one, I'd be in big trouble! LoL... I am not sure I am even supposed to be there... LoL... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted March 8, 2014 Share Posted March 8, 2014 Keystone XL Would Swell U.S. Pipeline Coverage by . . . 0.033 Percent Regarding the Keystone XL Pipeline, Obama might have a logical leg on which to stand if KXL were the first such conduit to ravage the American heartland with miles and miles of rivets and steel. ... For whatever reason, I have not paid any attention to any of the debate about the Keystone pipeline (I mean like -- ever). So, I could be completely wrong on this and probably am based on that graphic which is why I'm asking ... but is the left's argument against the pipeline (in a general sense I mean) couched in fears about climate change or more to do with fears over environmental damage if the pipeline were to have a spill? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 8, 2014 Share Posted March 8, 2014 For whatever reason, I have not paid any attention to any of the debate about the Keystone pipeline (I mean like -- ever). So, I could be completely wrong on this and probably am based on that graphic which is why I'm asking ... but is the left's argument against the pipeline (in a general sense I mean) couched in fears about climate change or more to do with fears over environmental damage if the pipeline were to have a spill? I think it is NIMBYism. ?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted March 8, 2014 Share Posted March 8, 2014 I think it is NIMBYism. ?? That would make sense too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 8, 2014 Share Posted March 8, 2014 (edited) That would make sense too. Yeah, take a look @ B-Man's picture... Pipeline all over the place except the western part of South Dakota (west of the MO River)... There is a big open area... Then the KXL is to run right through that area. It does appear to skirt & miss the Black Hills-Badlands-Buffalo Gap National Grassland... KXL would run further east, but west of the MO according to that rough map they posted. Edited March 8, 2014 by ExiledInIllinois Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted March 8, 2014 Share Posted March 8, 2014 (edited) For whatever reason, I have not paid any attention to any of the debate about the Keystone pipeline (I mean like -- ever). So, I could be completely wrong on this and probably am based on that graphic which is why I'm asking ... but is the left's argument against the pipeline (in a general sense I mean) couched in fears about climate change or more to do with fears over environmental damage if the pipeline were to have a spill? http://news.investor...peline-need.htm The Canadian tragedy comes amid the controversy over the transport of Canadian crude through the proposed Keystone XL pipeline to Gulf Coast refineries. Without Keystone, designed to carry 830,000 barrels a day of oil, shipments of Canadian crude by rail would rise an additional 42% by 2017, according to RBC Capital Markets. Railways suffer spills 2.7 times more often than pipelines, according to the Washington-based Association of American Railroads. If that seems self-serving, the State Department, citing a 2012 study from the free-market Manhattan Institute, said trains spill 33 times more oil than pipelines. The oil boom in the Bakken formation centered in North Dakota and the danger of rail shipments should increase concern south of the border as well. A spike in oil production from shale caused a 46% increase in petroleum shipments by rail for Burlington Northern Santa Fe. For 2013, BNSF forecast a 40% increase in crude shipments. President Obama's favorite 1-percenter, Warren Buffett, made a good investment when he bought BNSF in 2010 for $26.5 billion. With the explosive development of the Bakken shale formation, its oil riches are shipped south on Buffett's railroad in dangerous tank cars instead of a proposed link to the stalled Keystone XL pipeline. "The evidence is so overwhelming that railroads are far less safe than pipelines," says Charles Ebinger, director of the Brookings Institution's energy security initiative. The tragedy in Lac-Megantic underscores that, as well as the fact such rail shipments could be a potential target for eco-terrorists and others. Read More At Investor's Business Daily: http://news.investor...m#ixzz2vMpr2EsW Follow us: @IBDinvestors on Twitter | InvestorsBusinessDaily on Facebook I wonder why Obama is holding off approving it as long as possible. Edited March 8, 2014 by 3rdnlng Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted March 8, 2014 Share Posted March 8, 2014 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted March 8, 2014 Share Posted March 8, 2014 Sorry if this was already posted http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2014/02/20/global-climate-report-january-noaa/5642715/ God is real and global warming is a myth :/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted March 8, 2014 Share Posted March 8, 2014 No more guacamole due to Climate ChangeTM!! http://news.yahoo.com/climate-changes-latest-casualty-could-chipotles-guacamole-salsa-013935834.html;_ylt=AwrBEiSHeRtTomUA_s3QtDMD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted March 8, 2014 Share Posted March 8, 2014 Sorry if this was already posted http://www.usatoday....y-noaa/5642715/ God is real and global warming is a myth :/ Could have fooled me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts