Top bar
About POGO's Federal Contractor Misconduct Database (FCMD)
The government awards contracts to companies with histories of misconduct such as contract fraud and environmental, ethics, and labor violations. In the absence of a centralized federal database listing instances of misconduct, the Project On Government Oversight (POGO) is providing such data. We believe that it will lead to improved contracting decisions and public access to information about how the government spends hundreds of billions of taxpayer money each year on goods and services. Report an instance of misconduct »
Ranking: 124
Exxon Mobil
Exxon Mobil Corporation is a leading international energy company whose subsidiaries have operations in approximately 200 countries and territories. In the United States, ExxonMobil has significant exploration and production, refining and marketing and chemicals operations. ExxonMobil is one of the largest oil and gas producers and reserve holders in the United States, with a portfolio including Alaska, onshore Gulf Coast and deepwater Gulf of Mexico. In addition, there are approximately 16,000 Exxon and Mobil branded service stations in the U.S., as well as seven refineries, four of which are integrated petrochemical facilities.
Federal Contract $: $ 255.6m
Total Number of Instances: 59
Total Misconduct dollar amount: $2383.1m
- Annual Report
- Ethics Page
- Hoovers Profile
- Lobbying Information
- Political Activity
- Press Page
- SEC 10K
- Website
- Contracting Information
Instances of Misconduct
1. Clean Air Act Violation
A “Consent Decree in United States et al. v. Exxon Mobil Corporation and ExxonMobil Oil Corporation, Civil Action No. O5-C-5809, was lodged with the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. In a complaint that was filed simultaneously with the Consent Decree, the United States, the State of Illinois, the State of Louisiana, and the State of Montana sought injunctive relief and penalties against Exxon Mobil Corporation and ExxonMobil Oil Corporation (“ExxonMobil”) pursuant to Sections 113(b) and 304(a) of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7413(b) and 7604(a), for alleged Clean Air Act violations and violations of the corollary provisions in state laws at ExxonMobil petroleum refineries in Baton Rouge, Louisiana; Baytown, Texas; Beaumont, Texas; Billings, Montana; Joliet, Illinois, and Torrance, California." Under the settlement, ExxonMobil will implement innovative pollution control technologies to reduce emissions of nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, and particulate matter from refinery process units and also will adopt facility-wide enhanced benzene waste monitoring and fugitive emission control programs. In addition, ExxonMobil paid a $7.7 million civil penalty and pledged to undertake $6.7 million in federal and state environmental projects. In December 2008, Exxon paid over $6 million in civil penalties for allegedly violating the 2005 settlement agreement by failing to monitor the sulfur content in some fuel gas streams at four refineries.... more»
2. Exxon Corp. v. Alabama (Natural Gas Royalties)
"In December 2000, a jury in the 15th Judicial Circuit Court of Montgomery County, Alabama, returned a verdict against the Corporation in a dispute over royalties in the amount of $88 million in compensatory damages and $3.4 billion in punitive damages in the case of Exxon Corporation v. State of Alabama, et al. The verdict was upheld by the trial court in May 2001. In December 2002, the Alabama Supreme Court vacated the $3.5 billion jury verdict. The case was retried and in November 2003, a state district court jury in Montgomery, Alabama, returned a verdict against Exxon Mobil Corporation. The verdict included $63.5 million in compensatory damages and $11.8 billion in punitive damages. In March 2004, the district court judge reduced the amount of punitive damages to $3.5 billion." In November 2007, the Alabama Supreme Court struck down the punitive damages award. The court ruled that the state did not prove that Exxon Mobil committed fraud and was therefore not entitled to punitive damages. The court also reduced compensatory damages to $51.9 million plus interest, which amounted to an additional $70 million.... more»
3. Exxon Dealers Class Action
In 1991, a group of current and former Exxon direct served dealers filed a lawsuit against Exxon, alleging Exxon had been overcharging dealers for the wholesale price of motor fuel since March 1983. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of all dealers who were parties to one or more Sales Agreements with Exxon and who purchased motor fuel directly from Exxon between March 1983 and August 1994. The claim relates to Exxon's Discount for Cash program, under which Exxon began charging dealers a separate 3% fee for processing credit transactions. However, Exxon said it would reduce the wholesale price of motor fuel by an amount that, on average, would offset the fee. The dealers alleged Exxon collected the fee but failed to reduce the price. On December 19, 2005, Exxon and the plaintiffs entered into a settlement agreement pursuant to which Exxon agreed to pay $1.075 billion.... more»
4. Exxon Valdez Class Action (Punitive Damages)
"On September 24, 1996, the United States District Court for the District of Alaska entered a judgment in the amount of $5 billion in punitive damages to a class composed of all persons and entities who asserted claims for punitive damages from the corporation as a result of the Exxon Valdez grounding. ExxonMobil appealed the judgment. On November 7, 2001, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacated the punitive damage award as being excessive under the Constitution and remanded the case to the District Court for it to determine the amount of the punitive damage award consistent with the Ninth Circuit’s holding. The Ninth Circuit upheld the compensatory damage award which has been paid. On December 6, 2002, the District Court reduced the punitive damage award from $5 billion to $4 billion. Both the plaintiffs and ExxonMobil appealed that decision to the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit panel vacated the District Court’s $4 billion punitive damage award without argument and sent the case back for the District Court to reconsider in light of the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in Campbell v. State Farm. On January 28, 2004, the District Court reinstated the punitive damage award at $4.5 billion plus interest." In May 2007, the Ninth Circuit set punitive damages at $2.5 billion. In June 2008, the Supreme Court ruled that the punitive damages award was excessive as a matter of maritime common law and reduced the award to an amount equal to the District Court's calculation of the total relevant compensatory damages, or $507.5 million. In June 2009, Exxon was ordered to pay interest on the punitive damages award. [NOTE: Compensatory damages are not included in the FCMD because they were awarded prior to Jan. 1, 1995.]... more»
5. Grefer v. Exxon Mobil (Contaminated Property)
In 2001, a Louisiana state court jury awarded compensatory damages of $56 million and punitive damages of $1 billion to a landowner for damage caused by a third party that leased the property from the landowner. The third party provided pipe cleaning and storage services for Exxon Mobil. The Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reduced the punitive damage award to $112 million in 2005. In February 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court vacated the Louisiana appeals court’s $112 million punitive damages award and directed it to re-examine the award in light of the Court’s recent decision that put new limits on punitive damages. On remand, the appeals court reaffirmed the award. In April 2008, the Supreme Court denied Exxon's appeal. See related Exxon Mobil instance, "Louisiana Property Contamination."... more»
6. Hazardous Waste
"United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 2,…announced one of the largest hazardous waste settlements in history, with the filing of a Consent Decree, settling a hazardous waste case filed in 1996 against Mobil Oil Corporation. The case alleged mismanagement of benzene-contaminated wastes at Port Mobil, a major petroleum product storage and distribution terminal on the Arthur Kill in Staten Island. United States v. Mobil Oil Corporation, 96-1432 (JG). The case was scheduled for trial this week before United States District Judge John Gleeson. The Consent Decree is with Exxon Mobil Corporation, as a result of the 1999 merger of Mobil and Exxon."... more»
7. Massachusetts Clean Up Violation
The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) has assessed a penalty of $43,984 against the ExxonMobil Oil Corporation for the company's failure to undertake cleanup actions in compliance with environmental regulations at the former Exxon Service Station location at 6 Goffe Street, Hadley.... more»
8. Oil Royalties
"Exxon Mobil Corporation...agreed to pay $7 million to resolve claims under the False Claims Act [31 U.S.C. § 3729] and administrative claims that the corporation underpaid royalties due for oil produced on federal leases between 1988 and 1998."... more»
9. Santa Clara Oil Spill
"The U.S. Department of Justice, together with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the California Department of Fish and Game,...announced a settlement under which ExxonMobil Oil Corporation [paid] the United States and the state of California $4.7 million in compensation for a spill of crude oil from a pipeline operated by the former Mobil Oil Company."... more»
10. Texas Air Quality Regulation Violations
"Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (“TCEQ”) issued Notices of Enforcement to [Exxon Mobil Corporation (EMOC)] with respect to its Beaumont, Texas refinery on May 21, 2002 and on August 22, 2002. The TCEQ alleged violations of Texas Air Quality regulations relating to leak detection and repair issues. EMOC entered into a final administrative order with the TCEQ, resolving all outstanding issues in this matter, on February 21, 2004. Under the order, EMOC has paid a $75,000 penalty to the TCEQ and has paid $75,000 to Jefferson County, Texas for a supplemental environmental project."... more»
11. Leak Detection and Repair Violations and Failure to Submit Required Reports
The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) "issued a Notice of Enforcement on June 25, 2003, alleging leak detection and repair violations and failure to submit deviation reports required by a permit. The allegations relate to Colonial Tank Farm, which is operated by [Exxon Mobil's (EMOC)] Beaumont refinery under an agreement with Colonial Pipeline. EMOC entered into an administrative order with the TCEQ on February 3, 2004 whereby EMOC has agreed to pay a civil penalty in the amount of $4,800 to resolve this matter."... more»
12. Leak Detection and Repair Violations and Inadequate Notification of Emission Events
The "Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (“TCEQ”)... agreed to settle a Notice of Enforcement issued on August 29, 2003, alleging leak detection and repair violations and inadequate notifications of several emissions events as required by air quality regulations at ExxonMobil Oil Corporation’s (“EMOC”) Beaumont, Texas refinery. Under the terms of the settlement, EMOC has agreed to pay a civil penalty totaling $80,444, half of which will be paid through a supplemental environmental project involving county vehicle retrofits."... more»
13. Unregistered Tanks in Pennsylvania
On October 29, 1999, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (the "PDEP") [alleged] that Mobil Oil Corporation had violated the Pennsylvania Tank Act by knowingly delivering products into unregistered tanks, was settled. The PDEP had sought penalties of up to $295,000; the matter was settled with the payment of a $90,000 penalty.... more»
14. New Hampshire Gasoline Spills Cleanup
In April 2007, as part of a settlement with the state of New Hampshire, Exxon Mobil agreed to pay the State Environmental Fund $2,041,438 to reimburse the cost of cleaning up gasoline spills at 41 of its gasoline stations. The types of contamination involved included methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE), a gasoline additive the state banned in 2007. The state of New Hampshire is also currently pursuing a separate MTBE lawsuit against Exxon Mobil and 21 other oil companies. See related ChevronTexaco Corp. pending misconduct instance, "New Hampshire MTBE Pollution Lawsuit."... more»
15. Environmental Violations at Torrance, Calif. Refinery
Exxon Mobil Corp. agreed to pay $400,000 in penalties to California for environmental violations at its Torrance refinery. Exxon Mobil also agreed to spend a maximum of $2 million on supplemental environmental projects intended to cut excessive emissions of carbon dioxide and other pollutants at the refinery. The company paid $250,000 for a March 22, 2007 incident that caused the release of nitrogen oxides, carbon dioxide and other substances. In addition, Exxon Mobil paid $150,000 to settle 23 air permit and air quality violations at the Torrance facility that occurred between October 2005 and October 2006.... more»
16. Price Fixing in El Salvador
The government of El Salvador accused Esso Standard Oil (owned by Exxon Mobil) and Royal Dutch Shell’s local subsidiary of price fixing and fined each company $852,000. The government accused the companies of colluding to set artificially high gas prices.... more»
17. Unauthorized Re-Exports to Sudan
“The U.S. Department of Commerce announced that ExxonMobil Corporation of Fairfax, Va., agreed to pay civil penalties totaling $49,500 to settle charges that affiliates of the former Mobil Oil Corporation, located in Texas, the United Kingdom, and Egypt participated in or were otherwise liable for the unauthorized re-export of computers and related hardware to Sudan. These exports were made in violation of the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) and a trade embargo in place since 1997…The Commerce Department’s Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) charged that on three occasions between June 1999 and February 2000, Mobil Services Company Ltd. and Mobil Oil Egypt caused the re-export of computer servers and laptop computers to a Mobil Oil subsidiary in Sudan without the required export licenses.”... more»
18. DPP v. Esso Australia Party Ltd. (Occupational Health and Safety Violations)
In 1998 an explosion at the Longford, Australia gas processing plant owned by Esso, a subsidiary of Exxon Mobil, killed two and wounded eight. In July 2001, the Australian Supreme Court imposed $1 million in fines on Esso after the company was found guilty of 11 criminal charges brought under the Occupational Health and Safety Act 1985.... more»
19. MTBE Cleanup Costs (Santa Monica, CA)
“Under the terms of a settlement filed…in federal court, several oil companies will pay $1.5 million to the Environmental Protection Agency for costs it incurred while directing the investigation and cleanup of methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE), a gasoline additive, from a groundwater basin formerly used for drinking water by the City of Santa Monica, California... The agreement between the EPA and the oil companies follows eight years of investigation and cleanup under the Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and California’s Porter Cologne Act. The MTBE contamination in the vicinity of Santa Monica’s drinking water wells came from at least 25 possible sources, most of which were gas stations in the Charnock Sub-Basin.”... more»
20. Air Pollution Violations (Illinois)
On August 18. 2005, the Will County State’s Attorney’s office in Illinois announced that local environmental projects would receive $110,000 “as part of a settlement agreement reached with ExxonMobil regarding alleged air pollution violations at the oil company’s refinery located southwest of Joliet, in Channahon Township…In addition, ExxonMobil will pay $150,000 to the Illinois Environmental Protection Trust Fund and $21,846 to the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) for costs incurred during the investigation and clean-up.”... more»
21. Air Quality Violations (California)
“In one of the region’s largest air pollution penalties, ExxonMobil Oil Corp. paid $8.25 million…to the South Coast Air Quality Management District to settle numerous air quality violations at the company’s Torrance refinery and Terminal Island facility…Most of the ExxonMobil violations were for improper inspection and maintenance of large, above-ground tanks used to store gasoline and other petroleum-based liquids; and for leaks of smog-forming volatile organic compounds from those tanks and other equipment.”... more»
22. The Exxon Valdez Case Reopener
“The United States and the State of Alaska submitted to ExxonMobil Corporation a detailed plan for a proposed restoration project intended to restore habitat in the area affected by the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill. Today’s restoration plan was submitted in accord with the requirements of a set of provisions known as the “Reopener for Unknown Injury” in the consent decree which settled the governments’ civil claims against Exxon Corporation (now ExxonMobil), the Exxon Shipping Company and the Exxon Pipeline Company arising from the spill….At the time of the settlement, Exxon agreed to pay the governments $900 million in installments for costs and for natural resource damages known or reasonably anticipated at the time of the settlement. The settlement also included a unique provision allowing the federal and state trustees to seek up to $100 million in additional monies for damages satisfying [certain] criteria…The ultimate cost of the project depends upon such factors as how many oiled sites require remediation and the remediation approach selected. It is currently estimated to cost approximately $92 million.”... more»
23. Violations of Clean Water Act (Texas)
On January 9, 2006, Exxon Mobil and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) agreed to settle a complaint that “alleged violations of the Clean Water Act at Hawkins Field (in Wood County, Texas) related to 13 spills of produced water into potential waters of the United States occurring June 2000 to August 2004." Exxon Mobil agreed to pay a $31,000 civil penalty and to perform a supplemental environmental project valued at $91,000.... more»
24. Violation of Minerals Management Service Regulation
Exxon Mobil was assessed a $25,000 penalty by the Offshore Minerals Management on June 8, 2006 because "the Pressure Safety Low (PSL) for Well G-24 , had the incorrect spring and piston installed; the spring tension was backed off to a point where it would not function. This violation occurred for 11 days.”... more»
25. Violations of Air Quality Regulations (Louisiana)
On May 24, 2005, the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality issued a Notice of Potential Penalty found several violations of the Environmental Quality Act, and, more specifically, air quality regulations. These violations included several 2004 incidents which discharged harmful chemicals into the air. Without admitting liability, Exxon agreed to pay $4000 to settle the claims.... more»
26. Safety Violations Leading to the Unauthorized Release of Hazardous Chemicals (Louisiana)
On November 22, 2002, the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality issued a Notice of Potential Penalty for safety violations which led to the unauthorized release of several hazardous chemicals. Without admitting liability, Exxon agreed to pay $350,000, $250,000 of which will go to performing beneficial environmental projects.... more»
27. Groundwater and Soil Contamination (Brooklyn, NY)
On June 21, 2006, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) announced that it "has agreed to initiate legal action against ExxonMobil Corporation to ensure that the company fulfills its obligation to clean up petroleum contamination in the Greenpoint, Brooklyn community. The contamination was caused by a number of oil spills and illegal discharges, including a 17 million gallon oil spill first detected in September 1978 that extended 52 acres under the Greenpoint area...The Greenpoint spill consists of groundwater contamination in the area between Monitor Street and Kingsland Avenue, just south of Greenpoint Avenue, and extending southeast to the vicinity of the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway. The area also has residual petroleum contamination in soil and fill materials. DEC is currently monitoring petroleum product recovery operations as part of a 1990 consent order with ExxonMobil. To date, more than 9 million gallons of oil have been recovered in the plume area, with progress ongoing." In February 2007, the New York Attorney General’s office filed a Notice of Intent to Sue ExxonMobil and other companies, including Chevron and BP America, for violations of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) in regard to solid or hazardous waste contamination of soil, groundwaters, surface waters and sediments in the Greenpoint area of Brooklyn. The following July, the Attorney General filed a federal lawsuit against Exxon Mobil Corporation and ExxonMobil Refining and Supply Company, seeking to stop oil currently spilling into the Greenpoint area; restore the Newtown Creek waterway, which divides Brooklyn and Queens; force heightened efforts to clean up and recover underground oil and contaminated groundwater and soil; and impose financial penalties on ExxonMobil. In November 2010, the case settled with Exxon agreeing to perform a full cleanup and pay approximately $25 million in penalties, costs and improvements to the local environment.... more»
28. Violations of Underground Tank Systems Standards
"The Department of Environmental Protection entered into an administrative consent order with ExxonMobil Corporation ("ExxonMobil") on November 29, 2001 for alleged underground storage tank violations at the ExxonMobil facility abutting Interstate-95 in Madison...One or more of the tank systems allegedly leaked an estimated 5,775 gallons of unleaded gasoline or petroleum products to the ground. ExxonMobil allegedly failed to timely report the release and immediately investigate and correct its source. Prior to the issuance of this consent order ExxonMobil thoroughly emptied, removed and replaced the four underground tank systems at the site...The consent order requires ExxonMobil to fund an informational campaign designed to heighten public awareness of underground storage tank leak detection requirements in the amount of $150,000 as a supplemental environmental project and pay a civil penalty of $95,000"... more»
29. Breaches of EU Emissions Trading Scheme in Scotland
The Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) fined ExxonMobil Chemical Limited €3,296,600 (approx. US$4.4 million) under the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme Regulations for failing to report nearly 33,000 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions at its Mossmorran ethylene cracker plant in Fife in 2008.... more»
30. Environmental Violations in Kazakhstan
Kazakhstan’s ecological ministry fined Tengizchevroil, a Chevron-led consortium developing the country’s Tengiz oil field, $609 million (later reduced to $309 million on appeal) for environmental violations relating to the stockpiling of sulfur between 2003 and 2006. The fine was imposed in July 2007, although it wasn’t announced until October. Chevron has a 50 percent stake in the consortium. Other members of the consortium include ExxonMobil, which has a 25 percent share, and Lukarco, a joint venture between Lukoil and BP, which has a 5 percent share. Tengizchevroil reportedly paid the fine, plus $10 million in legal fees, in November 2007.... more»
31. Nationwide MTBE Groundwater Contamination Litigation
A dozen oil companies, including BP America Inc., Chevron Corp., Shell Oil Co. and Valero Energy Corp., agreed to pay over $423 million to settle litigation with public water providers in 17 states over groundwater contamination from the gasoline additive methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE). The companies also agreed to pay cleanup costs that arise in the next 30 years. Defendant Exxon Mobil refused to settle and faces numerous MTBE trials, scheduled to begin in September 2008. In October 2009, a federal jury in New York City found Exxon liable for contaminating water wells in and near Jamaica, Queens with MTBE and awarded the city $104.7 million in damages.... more»
32. Shelby v. Exxon Mobil (Unsafe Working Conditions)
A state court jury in San Francisco awarded $8 million to Mack Shelby, an employee of Exxon Mobil Corp. subsidiary SeaRiver Maritime, Inc. (formerly known as Exxon Shipping Company), who claimed he developed kidney cancer after being exposed to benzene and other toxins on the job. The jury found SeaRiver negligent in failing to provide Shelby with a safe place to work and that the unsafe working conditions played a part in causing his cancer.... more»
33. CERCLA Cleanup (Marion County, WVa.)
In June 2008, the federal government entered into a consent decree with ExxonMobil to resolve the government’s claims for response costs pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (‘‘CERCLA’’). The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) incurred costs in connection with clean-up activities performed at the Big John’s Salvage Site, located in Marion County, West Virginia. Under the consent decree, ExxonMobil will pay EPA $3,000,000 in reimbursement. In August 2012, Exxon and the government entered into another consent decree under which Exxon agreed to contribute an additional $11,000,000 towards cleanup of the site.... more»
34. Paraffin Wax Price Fixing
Exxon Mobil and other producers of paraffin waxes were fined by European Commission regulators for participating in a cartel from 1992 to 2005 that fixed the price of paraffin wax and slack wax (the raw material used to produce paraffin wax). Exxon Mobil also engaged in market allocation for paraffin wax and fixed prices for slack wax sold to end-customers on the German market. Exxon Mobil was fined 83.6 million euros ($115.6 million). See related Royal Dutch Shell PLC instance, "Paraffin Wax Price Fixing."... more»
35. Boston Harbor Oil Spill
ExxonMobil Pipeline Company pleaded guilty to one count of violating the Clean Water Act in connection with the January 2006 spill of approximately 15,000 gallons of kerosene and low sulfur diesel fuel into the Mystic River from an oil terminal in Everett, Mass. Under a plea agreement, the company paid more than $6.1 million in fines and costs and agreed to have the terminal monitored by a court appointed observer for three years.... more»
36. Baltimore County Gasoline Leak – Civil Litigation (2009)
More than 300 residents of the Jacksonville area of northern Baltimore County, Maryland, sued Exxon Mobil for a discharge of more than 25,000 gallons of gasoline at a service station in January 2006. An underground pipe at the site leaked gasoline into the ground for over one month. In March 2009, a jury found Exxon liable and awarded a total of nearly $150 million in damages for medical expenses, diminution of property values and emotional distress. In February 2012, Maryland's intermediate appellate court reduced the damages to approximately $60 million. In February 2013, the Maryland high court threw out all damages and remanded several plaintiffs' claims for a new trial. See related Exxon Mobil instance, “Gasoline Leak (Baltimore County, Md.).”... more»
37. Louisiana Property Contamination
Exxon Mobil reportedly reached a settlement with 2,500 residents of a Louisiana community that claimed the company exposed them to radioactive waste left over from three decades of offshore pipe-cleaning on property located east of the Harvey Canal. The property is owned by members of the Grefer family, who sued Exxon and were awarded compensatory damages of $56 million and punitive damages of $1 billion (later reduced to $112 million) in 2001. ExxonMobil will pay claimants on a point basis, where each claimant will be assigned a total number of points according to the severity of the medical ailments claimed to have been caused by the radiation. ExxonMobil is one of 10 defendants named in the residents' lawsuit pending in state court. Negotiations with the other defendants broke down in early 2008. See related Exxon Mobil instance, “Grefer v. Exxon Mobil (Contaminated Property).”... more»
38. Santa Barbara Channel PCB Release
Exxon Mobil agreed to pay $2.64 million to settle allegations of violating the federal Toxic Substances Control Act by improperly handling and disposing of polychlorinated biphenyls (“PCBs”) on an offshore oil and gas platform in the Santa Barbara Channel, off the coast of southern California. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, between 2002 and 2005, two large electrical transformers located on the platform, part of Exxon’s Santa Ynez Unit, leaked nearly 400 gallons of PCB-contaminated fluid, and Exxon allowed one of the transformers to leak for almost two years before repairing it. Additionally, the EPA alleged Exxon failed to ensure that workers who cleaned up the leaked fluid were provided protective clothing or equipment.... more»
39. New Jersey Natural Resource Damage
New Jersey State Superior Court Judge Ross Anzaldi ruled that ExxonMobil was liable for causing a public nuisance by polluting the waterways, wetlands and marshes on and near its former refinery sites in Bayonne and Linden. The court in the natural resource damage lawsuit filed on behalf of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection found that ExxonMobil contaminated both sites through active disposal and accidental spilling of hazardous substances, causing damages in an amount that will be determined at a later trial.... more»
40. Gasoline Leak (Baltimore County, Md.)
Exxon Mobil paid a $4 million penalty to settle a lawsuit filed by the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) over the release of over 25,000 gallons of gasoline at a north Baltimore County service station in early 2006. An underground pipe at the site leaked gasoline into the ground for over one month.... more»
41. Spillman v. ANCO Insulations, Inc., et al.
A court awarded damages to the family of Bruce Spillman, a former Exxon employee who died of mesothelioma in 2005. Spillman worked on Exxon towboats from 1945 to 1949 and was exposed to asbestos in the boats' engine rooms. From 1949 until 1986 he worked in Exxon's Baton Rouge oil refinery, where he was exposed to pipes insulated with asbestos. The court found that Exxon’s conduct was the legal cause of Spillman’s disease and that Exxon knew or should have known that its conduct posed a risk of harm.... more»
42. Violation of Migratory Bird Protection Law
The U.S. government charged Exxon Mobil with violations of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The charges involve the deaths of approximately 85 protected birds at Exxon drilling and production facilities in Colorado, Wyoming, Oklahoma, Texas and Kansas between 2004 and 2009. The government alleged that most of the birds died after exposure to hydrocarbons in uncovered natural gas well reserve pits and waste water storage facilities. Exxon agreed to plead guilty to misdemeanor violations of the law. Under the terms of the plea agreement, Exxon will be sentenced to three years of probation (during which Exxon must implement an environmental compliance plan designed to keep birds from coming into contact with contaminated waters at its facilities in the five affected states), pay a criminal fine of $400,000 (to be deposited into the federally-administered North American Wetlands Conservation Fund), make $200,000 in community service payments, and pay a $250 special assessment.... more»
43. U.S. ex rel. Wright v. Chevron (Underpayment of Natural Gas Royalties)
Mobil Natural Gas, Inc., and Mobil Exploration & Producing U.S., Inc. (which merged into and became subsidiaries of ExxonMobil in 1999), agreed to pay $32.2 million to resolve claims that they violated the False Claims Act by knowingly underpaying royalties owed on natural gas produced from federal and American Indian leases. The Mobil companies are alleged to have systematically under reported the value of natural gas taken from the leases from 1988 to 1999 and, consequently, paid less royalties than owed to the federal government and various American Indian tribes. (See related ChevronTexaco Corporation instance, "U.S. ex rel. Wright v. Chevron (Underpayment of Natural Gas Royalties)".)... more»
44. Pollution Violations at Guam and Mariana Islands Facilities
Exxon Mobil subsidiaries Mobil Oil Guam, Inc. and Mobil Oil Mariana Islands, Inc. agreed to pay $2.4 million for alleged violations of the Clean Air Act relating to the discharge of hundreds of tons of organic compounds into the air from bulk gasoline terminals on Cabras Island in Guam and the Lower Base area of Saipan. According to the government, Mobil Oil Guam and Mobil Oil Mariana Islands failed to install vapor pollution controls on storage tanks and loading racks at gasoline storage facilities, comply with pollution limits, install pollution monitors, or submit required reports. The companies settled without admitting any liability or wrongdoing.... more»
45. American Samoa Gasoline Additive Violations
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reached a settlement with Mobil Oil Australia Ltd. and BP Southwest Pacific Ltd. for alleged violations of gasoline detergent additive regulations in American Samoa that occurred between April 2000 and August 2002. Both companies agreed to pay over $340,000 in penalties and the cost of installing respiratory equipment for the LBJ Medical Center in American Samoa.... more»
46. Wireline Unit Removal Operation Violation
The Minerals Management Service (MMS) of the Department of Interior fined Exxon Mobil Corporation for a violation occurring on April 26, 2004. According to MMS: “A 4’ x 8’ section of top deck grating had been removed in order to facilitate a wireline unit removal operation. The area was not flagged or barricaded to warn personnel of the open area; and personnel working in the direct vicinity of the open hole were not wearing fall protection gear.”... more»
47. Removal of Actuator for the Compressor Suction Shut Down Valve
The Minerals Management Service (MMS) of the Department of Interior fined Exxon Mobil Corp. for a violation occurring in May 2007. According to MMS: “The actuator for the compressor suction shut down valve (SDV) had been removed.”... more»
48. Secondary Sump Pump Out of Service
The Minerals Management Service (MMS) of the Department of Interior fined Exxon Mobil Corporation for a violation occurring in January 2002. According to MMS: “Secondary sump pump, approved in lieu of level safety high on sump tank, found out of service.”... more»
49. Employee Compensation Antitrust Litigation
Non-union managerial, professional and technical (MPT) employees of the major oil companies filed lawsuits under the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. § 1–7) alleging that the companies, including Exxon, Royal Dutch Shell, BP and Chevron, illegally colluded to set the wages of MPT employees at artificially low levels by sharing salary, bonus and compensation data. Lawsuits filed by Former Exxon employee Roberta Todd and several other plaintiffs were reportedly settled in 2009 for an undisclosed sum with the defendants not admitting any liability or wrongdoing.... more»
50. Lack of Fall Protection for Workers
The Minerals Management Service (MMS) of the Department of Interior fined Exxon Mobil Corporation for a violation occurring on January 15, 2009. According to MMS: “An MMS Inspector observed three employees working at a height greater than 6 feet with no fall protection.”... more»
51. Lack of Safety Protection for Contract Employee
The Minerals Management Service (MMS) of the Department of Interior fined Exxon Mobil Corp. for a violation occurring on March 19, 2009. According to MMS: “A contract employee was observed working on the edge of a deck that had no handrails. The employee was not wearing a personal flotation device or fall protection.”... more»
52. Violation of Massachusetts Air Pollution Laws at Bulk Gasoline Terminals
Exxon Mobil and two affiliates agreed to pay a $2.9 million civil penalty to resolve allegations that they violated Massachusetts air pollution laws. Attorney General Martha Coakley alleged that between 1999 and 2001, without the approval of Massachusetts environmental regulators, Exxon made changes to the vapor collection and recovery system used to control emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOC) at its bulk gasoline terminals in Everett and Springfield. It was also alleged that Exxon failed to control VOC emissions during the degassing of a storage tank in Everett in 2008. Under the agreement, Exxon will reduce gasoline vapor emissions by updating and improving air pollution control systems at the terminals. Exxon will also contribute $200,000 to a supplemental environmental project (SEP).... more»
53. Violation of Minerals Management Service Regulation
The Minerals Management Service (MMS) of the Department of Interior fined Exxon Mobil Corp. for a violation occurring in April 2007. According to MMS: “Well bypassed at the panel.”... more»
54. RCRA Violation at Agrifos Fertilizer Site
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Exxon Mobil agreed to settle a case involving over one billion gallons of illegally stored hazardous waste at the Agrifos Fertilizer site in Pasadena, Texas. ExxonMobil is the prior owner of the site and retained closure and post-closure responsibility for the site’s waste impoundments when it sold the site in 1998. EPA alleged ExxonMobil violated the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) by illegally commingling hazardous waste with the acidic process wastewater stored in the impoundments. The company will spend more than $150 million to close the impoundments and dispose of the hazardous waste at the site. As part of the settlement Exxon will be responsible for post-closure care, including groundwater monitoring, from the impoundments for the next 50 years.... more»
55. Anderson v. Exxon Mobil (Asbestos Exposure)
A state court jury awarded $7 million award to Bonnie Anderson, who claimed she contracted peritoneal mesothelioma from laundering the asbestos-laden clothing of her husband, who worked at Exxon’s Linden Bayway Refinery in Linden, New Jersey, and from her employment at the refinery. The jury also awarded Anderson’s husband, John, $500,000. The Andersons were also awarded $1.8 million in prejudgment interest.... more»
56. Walsh v. Mobil Oil Canada (Gender Discrimination)
Delorie Walsh claimed that Mobil Oil Canada paid her less than male employees in the same position, denied her promotions because of her gender, allowed her to be subjected to harassment, and retaliated against her after she filed a complaint by firing her. After almost 20 years of litigating her case in civil and administrative tribunals in Alberta, Walsh was awarded over CAN$650,000 in damages.... more»
57. Minton v. BP Products North America, et al. (Asbestos Exposure)
Rubert “Bert” Minton worked at Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding, Inc. (formerly known as Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Company) from 1956 to 1979 as a shipfitter and commercial ship repair foreman and supervisor. During his time at the shipyard, Minton worked on 17 Exxon commercial oil tankers, which allegedly contained asbestos. In 2009, he was diagnosed with mesothelioma. In March 2011, a Virginia jury awarded him more than $25 million in damages, including $12 million in compensatory damages, $862,000 in medical expenses and interest, and $12.5 million in punitive damages.... more»
58. Baton Rouge Refinery OSHA Violations
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) cited ExxonMobil Refining and Supply Company for 20 serious and two other-than-serious safety violations that exposed workers to possible fires and explosions at the company’s petroleum refinery in Baton Rouge. (A serious violation occurs when there is substantial probability that death or serious physical harm could result from a hazard about which the employer knew or should have known. An other-than-serious violation is one that has a direct relationship to job safety and health, but probably would not cause death or serious physical harm.) OSHA proposed $126,600 in penalties.... more»
59. July 2011 Silvertip Pipeline Spill
ExxonMobil Pipeline Company agreed to pay the state of Montana penalties and restitution over a pipeline break in July 2011 that caused an estimated 63,300 gallons of crude oil to spill into the Yellowstone River. Exxon will pay $300,000, spend $1.3 million on future environmental projects, and reimburse the state for $760,000 in emergency response costs. See related Exxon Mobil pending instance, “Yellowstone River Oil Spill Lawsuit.”... more»
Quick Search
= link