ExxonMobil (XOM) knew in 1984 that adding the chemical MTBE to gasoline to make it burn more...

ExxonMobil (XOM) knew in 1984 that adding the chemical MTBE to gasoline to make it burn more thoroughly would triple incidents of groundwater contamination, lawyers for New Hampshire say at the opening of an $800M trial. XOM says the federal Clean Air Act overrides the state claims, and it was complying with a U.S. mandate to supply fuel that would burn more cleanly.
From other sites
Comments (6)
  • SoldHigh
    , contributor
    Comments (991) | Send Message
    FFwd to the present: incompetent govt thinks E85 is a good idea - what could go wrong burning food for fuel?


    14 Jan 2013, 05:56 PM Reply Like
  • BruceInKY
    , contributor
    Comments (445) | Send Message
    The law of unintended consequences again collides with but our intentions were to do good.
    14 Jan 2013, 05:57 PM Reply Like
  • RDSwindells
    , contributor
    Comments (20) | Send Message
    ExxonMobil did not exist in 1984. Which legacy company allegedly knew, Exxon or Mobil? Both companies marketed in NH as competitors.
    14 Jan 2013, 06:19 PM Reply Like
  • 123andy
    , contributor
    Comments (42) | Send Message
    I have some knowledge of this. Exxon provided information to the state and federal governments that MTBE was not a desired agent to add to gasoline. The State of California was most forceful in rejecting Exxon's information and insisting that the oil companies use MTBE. Other states, including NH followed in lock step. The suits and claims today are kind of hollow excuse for a best intentioned government screw-up
    14 Jan 2013, 06:57 PM Reply Like
  • Maninder Batra
    , contributor
    Comments (564) | Send Message
    Is obama regime trying to arm twist Exxonmobil into paying bribes/protection money...
    15 Jan 2013, 07:02 AM Reply Like
  • BruceInKY
    , contributor
    Comments (445) | Send Message
    MB, this is a state not federal action. XOM defense is that it was following a federal mandate. So in this case the answer is "no" but we're waiting to see what he intends to do about fracking and Keystone Pipeline.


    My expectation is that Obama 2.0's policy will not be favorable to energy interests or US consumers. But he would love to expand the EPA's regulatory and enforcement powers and see us all turn to bicycles and rickshaws.
    15 Jan 2013, 07:56 AM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Screener: Search and filter by asset class, strategy, theme, performance, yield, and much more
ETF Performance: View ETF performance across key asset classes and investing themes
ETF Investing Guide: Learn how to build and manage a well-diversified, low cost ETF portfolio
ETF Selector: An explanation of how to select and use ETFs