1. ExxonMobil is using a loophole in the law to avoid paying for the cleanup

So, as a result of the fact that the crude that spilled in Mayflower is conventionally produced heavy oil, it is considered taxable under the Oil Liability Trust Fund.

2. ExxonMobil is barring access to the site

One activist who masquerades as a reporter even accused us of threatening to have her arrested. Also not true. The reporter was in an unauthorized area on private property and was asked politely to leave.

I am not aware of anyone that has claimed that Exxon was not paying for the cleanup. Ken does not cite any references for that assertion. However, people have accused Exxon of taking advantage of a loophole to avoid contributing to the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund , me included. Ken says the petroleum molasses in the Pegasus pipeline is not exempt because it was produced by conventional drilling.I stand corrected. And we should thank Ken for verifying the existence of the tar sands loophole. As he noted, had this oil been produced by mining or in situ methods, it would have been exempt. We need to contact our glorious public servants and demand this loophole be plugged for unconventionally produced tar sands sludge. A great deal of this gunk is being imported into the U.S. every day and should be contributing its fair share to the Trust Fund. We criticized Exxon for harassing reporters that they did not like, threatening them with arrest. According to Ken, Lisa Song is not a real journalist and the company asked her nicely to get out of the command post.So Exxon gets to decide who is a legitimate journalist and who is just asking the wrong questions for the wrong reasons. The command post is an unauthorized area and off-limits to reporters without special permission. Got it.

Ken also admits that the police have been instructed to keep gawkers away from the site and Exxon even has a say in what media personnel are allowed access.



In fact, we’ve been assisting media to gain access to the site throughout the week by working with local authorities.

3. We’ve instituted a no-fly zone to prevent aerial photography

We asked the Federal Aviation Administration to take their standard safety precaution to ensure aircraft safety during an emergency response situation. They’ve temporarily restricted flights lower than 1,000 feet to make sure that helicopters involved in the response don’t come into collision with other aircraft in the area.

4. Crude oil from the Canadian oil sands is inherently more corrosive than regular oil



5. We shouldn’t use pipelines because they are inherently unsafe

It is bit like a concert and Exxon gets to hand out the backstage passes. The criticism was that Exxon had asked for and been granted a no-fly zone by the FAA. That is, in fact, true.Airspace restrictions do cut down on aerial photography even if the stated purpose to limit air traffic congestion. I am sure the air was filled with helicopters carrying cleanup crew members and supplies to the affected areas. Otherwise, the need to consider this an emergency response area would not be justified.

These issues are not exclusively related to the Pegasus spill, but reflect Exxon's larger fear that this mess will be used to raise questions about the Keystone XL pipeline. As we watch Exxon spread paper towels and boom over wetlands to trap "heavy oil" in Arkansas and Enbridge's bumbling cleanup of its 2010 tar sands spill in Michigan, it is clear the industry has no idea how to approach major spills of tar sands glop. The assurances provided by the State Department for the Keystone XL pipeline are disingenuous.

Poor Ken is trying his best to spin the safety of tar sands oil in pipelines. Thanks to proprietary concerns, there is very little public information on the physical properties of tar sands bitumen. The only study that has shown that diluted bitumen is not more corrosive than conventional oil is one funded by the industry. Since Exxon applauds skepticism, I am sure they will understand if we are skeptical of those claims.

Without a doubt, pipelines are a comparatively safe way to transport conventional crude oil and refined petroleum products. The jury is still out on the effects of the acidity and suspended silica in diluted bitumen on pipeline integrity. However, tar sands oil is more difficult to clean up because of its weight and viscosity. The consequences and costs associated with a tar sands diluted bitumen spill are very different than conventional light crude. Despite the difficulty of cleanup, companies transporting tar sands diluted bitumen do not have to contribute to the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, a loophole that needs to be closed.

Speaking of oil spills, perhaps we should ask Ken how the cleanup of the Exxon Valdez spill is coming.





