wall street journal

Tue, 2014-01-21 17:35Mike G
Mike G's picture

Wall Street Journal Investigation: High-Tech Oil Pipeline Monitors Catch Less Than 20 Percent Of Leaks

Last September, a farmer harvesting wheat in North Dakota smelled crude oil in his fields. That was the first indication anyone had that a Tesoro pipeline had ruptured and spewed some 20,000 barrels of oil into the environment.

Tesoro says it has beefed up its monitoring of the pipeline, as the pressure sensors it had installed before the spill did not detect the slow seep of oil, even though it had soaked a surrounding area the size of six football fields.

This may sound like an outlier case, but as it turns out, it is pretty much the industry standard. According to an investigation by the Wall Street Journal, it is all too common that oil companies are the last to know when their pipelines spring a leak.

Coming just a week after Canada’s foreign minister traveled to Washington, D.C., and called on the Obama administration to make a decision on Keystone XL pipeline, the results of the paper's analysis contradict the oil industry’s claims that the safety of pipelines can be ensured through existing measures.

According to the Wall Street Journal, which looked at Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration data on 251 spills that occurred on private property since 2010, the industry's pipeline monitoring equipment was the first to detect a leak in just 19.5 percent of incidents.

The other 80 percent of the time leaks are generally discovered by people — local residents and landowners, like that North Dakota wheat farmer, as well as on-site employees of the oil and pipeline companies.

Thu, 2013-12-19 06:00Farron Cousins
Farron Cousins's picture

Exxon Pressures Government To Lift Oil Export Restrictions

It wasn’t long ago that the dirty energy industry and their friends in Congress and the media were screaming that we needed to open up every corner of America to oil and gas drilling in order to lower energy costs and help protect our country from oil-rich countries who don’t like the United States. 

We were promised that increased domestic production would lower our fuel costs, strengthen our national security, and help ensure our economic prosperity.  And even after the Obama Administration agreed to open up even more federal lands to drilling, the American public has yet to see any of these benefits materialize. 

But the oil industry isn’t complaining.  They’ve been given everything that they asked for over the last few years, and while we’re still paying, on average, $3.22 a gallon at the pump, the industry is pulling in profits of $375 million a day between the top 5 companies.

You would think that Big Oil would have little to complain about at this point, but you’d be wrong.  Apparently, they feel like their record profits should be even higher, so they’ve now decided that it's time to ease restrictions on oil exports so they can go take advantage of more lucrative overseas markets. Here at home, however, expect your pain at the pump to continue. You're not their priority, despite the fancy advertising.

ExxonMobil, the most profitable oil company in America, has called on the federal government to ease the rules regarding how much domestically-produced oil can be shipped out of the United States.  They are backed in this call by their friends in the conservative media, including the Wall Street Journal

To reiterate, they want to take the oil that we finally agreed to let them “drill, baby drill” out of our national parks and public lands – the oil that was supposed to lower our prices to take the burden off of U.S. families, but never did – and ship it to markets that are paying more for oil. Why? So they can make profits that make $375 million per day look like minimum wage by comparison.

Mon, 2013-09-16 22:22Guest
Guest's picture

John Abraham Slams Matt Ridley for Climate Denial Op-Ed in Wall Street Journal

This is a guest post by Dr. John Abraham, in response to a Wall Street Journal op-ed by British House of Lords member Matt Ridley.

How many climate errors in one article?

A recent error-filled opinion piece by Matt Ridley in the Wall Street Journal was so egregious that readers deserve a correction.  The article, “Dialing back the alarm on climate change”, was written by someone who has never researched anything in the field of climate change (literature search on September 14, 2013).  So what did Mr. Ridley have to say that makes a real scientist cringe? 

First, Mr. Ridley states that a forthcoming major climate change report (for which I was an expert reviewer) will lower the expected temperature rise we will experience in the future.  He also claims that the temperature rises will be beneficial. Since the report hasn’t been released yet, and reviewers promise confidentiality, my answer is based on available literature.  I can inform the readers that this isn’t necessarily the case.  What Mr. Ridley is focusing on is the lower bound of warming (the best case scenario for human society). What he doesn’t tell the readers is that regardless of which estimate of warming is correct, human society will be severely stressed.  Basically, he is arguing that the Earth may undergo a slow simmer whereas most scientists think it will be a faster boil.  Either way, the consequences are enormous.

Second, Mr. Ridley makes the unsubstantiated claim that warming of 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit will result in “no net or ecological damage”. 

This claim could only be made by someone who is unfamiliar with climate science.  With a fraction of that warming, we are already seeing economic and ecological damage.  Among them are increased precipitation in some regions with consequent flooding, more severe drought in other regions, increased storms, heat waves, rising sea levels. 

Fri, 2012-12-21 10:37Guest
Guest's picture

So-Called Skeptics Clinging To Slippery Strands Of Climate Science Denial

This a guest post by Professor Stephan Lewandowsky, of the University of Western Australia.

THE guy next to you in the pub turns around and says, “Popcorn doesn’t exist”… and he adds, “but it grows naturally on trees! And it’s good for you!”

Popcorn doesn’t exist but grows naturally on trees and is good for you? Would you entrust that fellow with the lives of your children if their future depended on logical coherence? No. No one would place any confidence in such incoherence.

Sadly, the public in some countries - in particular in Australia and the U.S.- is drenched in such incoherence in the form of climate denial. This incoherence often goes undetected.

To see why, it is helpful to analyze those messages from purported “skeptics” in some detail. For example, earlier this week on the same day that Australia’s only national broadsheet, the Rupert Murdoch-owned The Australian, received an adjudication by the Press Council against them for likening wind energy to pedophilia - yes, they really did say that - the paper also ran a piece that proclaimed future global warming to be minimal and beneficial to the planet.

Yes they really did say that, by dutifully reprinting a piece that ran in the Murdoch-owned Wall Street Journal the day before. Is there any truth to this comforting news?

No. To see why, it is helpful to survey the three major strands of climate denial.

Thu, 2012-09-13 17:12Guest
Guest's picture

Looking Back At The Wall Street Journal's Coal Op-Ads

Cross-posted from Media Matters with permission, view original here.

A Media Matters analysis reveals that The Wall Street Journal's editorials on acid rain mirrored misleading talking points featured in coal industry advertisements running elsewhere in the paper in the 1980s. The Journal also heavily promoted the claims of one particular industry consultant that was on the wrong side of science on acid rain, secondhand smoke and climate change. Years later, as industry groups orchestrate efforts to cast doubt on the science demonstrating health and climate impacts of fossil fuel use, the Journal continues to aid their efforts.

An American Electric Power ad that ran in The Wall Street Journal in 1979 downplays the environmental impacts of coal The Wall Street Journal Echoed Misleading Acid Rain Claims From Coal Industry Ads

In the winter of 1981, the Coalition for Environmental-Energy Balance, a front group for the coal industry, ran several advertisements in The Wall Street Journal defending the industry's emissions of sulfur dioxide, which were contributing to acid rain. The ads cast doubt on the threat of acid rain, warned about the cost of regulation, and claimed that calls for action to address sulfur dioxide emissions were politically motivated. The Wall Street Journal's editorial board used these same rhetorical tactics to forestall action on acid rain, as a previous Media Matters analysis found.

Thu, 2012-09-13 10:56Steve Horn
Steve Horn's picture

Heartland Institute Joins Rahm Emanuel's Side of the Picket Line in Chicago

Inspired by her father Sam's experience striking with the United Mine Workers and the National Miners' Union in 1931, Florence Reece asked her other workers - by way of singing - “Which Side Are You On?” The more things change, it appears, the more they stay the same. 

On Monday, the Chicago Teachers' Union (CTU) went on strike and made its demands for Chicago Public Schools (CPS) known in a 46-page document titled, “The Schools Chicago’s Students Deserve,” which also has a one-page summary.

“Some of the main sticking points,” the Huffington Post explained, “are teachers' pay, health benefits and job security under a new performance evaluation system.” That “performance evaluation system” is none other than President Obama's “Race to the Top.”

The third biggest school district in the United States, some 29,000 CPS teachers and school workers, have formed a picket line in a move reverberating around the country and the world. The strike will likely become major election season fodder, since Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel is Obama's former Chief-of-Staff and a major Super PAC fundraiser for Obama's 2012 campaign, a task he's temporarily halted in the wake of the CTU strike.

So which side has the Chicago-based Heartland Institute taken in this struggle?

Thu, 2012-02-02 17:50Graham Readfearn
Graham Readfearn's picture

Australian Meteorology Bureau Corrects Record On Former Research Head William Kininmonth's Actual Climate Change Experience

WHEN it comes to climate change science, as with most things in life, it pays to listen to actual experts with a solid background in their field.

On Monday the Wall Street Journal and, later, The Australian newspaper, ran an editorial from a group of climate science contrarians which claimed global warming had stopped and that CO2 was food for plants, rather than a potential pollutant. 
 
In a scathing response in the WSJ, also published by The Australian, 38 genuine climate change scientists, explained the original WSJ 16 were “the climate-science equivalent of dentists practising cardiology.”
 
“While accomplished,” the response explained, “most of its authors have no expertise in climate science. The few who have are known to hold extreme views that are out of step with nearly every other climate expert.”
 
The group also debunked the misleading notion that global warming had stopped. “Climate experts know that the long-term warming trend has not abated in the past decade,'' the group wrote. “In fact, it was the warmest decade on record. Observations show unequivocally that our planet is getting hotter.”
 
Several journalists and bloggers, including Media Matters, have also investigated the expertise of the signatories to the original op-ed, which included members of free market think-tanks, climate science denial organisations and even a former researcher for Exxon.
 
One of the WSJ 16 in question, did appear on paper though to have some solid experience on his CV. William Kininmonth, a long-time sceptic of human caused climate change, was described in the WSJ editorial as the “former head of climate research at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology”.
Mon, 2012-01-30 08:04Chris Mooney
Chris Mooney's picture

In Which Climate “Skeptics” Drop the Lysenko Bomb. No, I’m Not Kidding….

There has been a much justified uproar over last week’s Wall Street Journal op-ed, in which a group of scientific “skeptics” reiterate the old line that we don’t have to worry about global warming, and that those who do so are engaging in climate “alarmism.” Ample refutations have been penned; in some ways best of all, my friend Jamie Vernon showed that even hotbeds of leftwing extremism like Chevron, ExxonMobil, and the Pentagon are now concerned about and taking action on global warming.

The Wall Street Journal is, indeed, completely out in the cold on this matter.

There are many ways to refute the op-ed, but I want to focus on one not enough emphasized—the tone and some of the actual words and analogies used by its writers.

Wed, 2011-02-02 09:45Richard Littlemore
Richard Littlemore's picture

Wall Street Journal: Accurate 7% of the Time

93% of WSJ Opinion Pieces Misreport Climate Change

Scott Mandia, a professor of physical sciences at Suffolk County Community College at Long Island, N.Y. has done a topline analysis (on Climate Progress) of Wall Street Journal Editorial and Op-Ed (the “Opposite Editorial” Opinion Page) coverage of climate change and finds that the paper tells the truth seven per cent of the time.

The WSJ’s defence for this performance would undoubtedly be twofold. First, the pages Mandia analysed are for opinion, not news. Second, there really ARE a couple of deluded “experts” out there who challenge the majority view on climate change: the Journal has a right and responsibility to give voice to those views.

Fair enough. But a paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences has found that the proponderance of climate scientists who are worried about global warming is 97 per cent - not seven per cent, so the Journal is a bit off the mark. And while the paper is entitled to its opinions, it is beyond irresponsible to be setting its wishful thinking forth as fact. Bullshit is still bullshit, even if it’s in an editorial.

Pages

Subscribe to wall street journal