one candidate...from the SEC Edgar system. first part is from the latest MOBIL 10-Q. check out the Utah EPA actions against MOBIL. Second part is more of same from earlier 10K. Full filings are in SEC filings www.sec.gov EDGAR system. still digging....!
MOBIL CORP 10-Q dated 5/13/98
PART II - OTHER INFORMATIONItem 1. Legal Proceedings.
Environmental Litigation.
Mobil periodically receives notices from the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) or equivalent agencies at the state level that Mobil is a "potentially
responsible party" under Superfund or equivalent state legislation with respect
to various waste disposal sites. The majority of these sites are either still
under investigation by the EPA or the state agencies concerned, or under
remediation, or both. In certain instances, Mobil and other potentially
responsible parties have been named in court or administrative proceedings by
federal or state agencies seeking the cleanup of these sites. Mobil has also
been named as a defendant in various suits brought by private parties alleging
injury from disposal of wastes at these sites. The ultimate impact of these
proceedings on the business or accounts of Mobil cannot be predicted at this
time due to the large number of other potentially responsible parties and the
speculative nature of cleanup cost estimates, but based on our long experience
in managing environmental matters, we do not anticipate that the aggregate level
of future remediation costs will increase above recent levels so as to
materially and adversely affect our consolidated financial position or
liquidity.
On February 5, 1998, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
issued an administrative order alleging that Mobil Oil Corporation had violated
the Pennsylvania Tank Act by knowingly delivering products into unregistered
tanks. Mobil Oil Corporation anticipates that a penalty in the range of $150,000
will be sought. Mobil Oil Corporation has filed an appeal of the order with the
Pennsylvania Environmental Hearing Board.
On March 27, 1998, the EPA filed an administrative complaint with the USEPA
hearing clerk alleging that the operations of Mobil Oil Corporation's Beaumont,
Texas refinery had violated the Clean Air Act by reason of alleged violations of
the New Source Performance Standard ("NSPS") requirements for petroleum storage
tanks and alleged violations of fugitive emission requirements under the NSPS
and the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants. A penalty of
$158,000 is sought.
On March 2, 1998, Mobil Oil Corporation entered into a settlement agreement
with the District Attorney of Riverside County, California to settle allegations
by the County that the fiber trench systems that underlie Mobil Oil Corporation
service stations in the County failed to comply with the rules therefor. Under
the terms of the settlement agreement, Mobil Oil Corporation paid a penalty of
$200,000, paid an additional $67,000 to cover costs of environmental training,
education and investigations, and agreed to make fiber trench equipment upgrades
that are expected to cost approximately $500,000.
MOBIL - 12 -<PAGE>
Legal Proceedings -- continued
In a previously-reported proceeding, on March 30, 1998, the EPA filed a
civil action in the U.S. District Court for Utah, Central Division, alleging
that the McElmo Creek and Ratherford production units in Utah, which are
operated by Mobil Oil Corporation and in which Mobil Oil Corporation has an
interest, had violated the Clean Water Act by reason of discharges of produced
water into navigable waters of the United States and had also violated Spill
Prevention Control and Countermeasures Regulations promulgated under the Clean
Water Act. The maximum amount of the penalties sought in the action, based upon
the maximum statutory penalty amounts per alleged violation, is estimated to be
approximately $5.5 million.
The foregoing proceedings are not of material importance in relation to
Mobil's accounts and are described in compliance with SEC rules requiring
disclosure of such proceedings although not material.
MOBIL 10K - dated March 19, 1998
(B) ENVIRONMENTAL MATTERS
The discussions of Environmental Matters on pages 30 and 49 of Mobil's 1997
Annual Report to Shareholders are incorporated herein by reference.
Mobil and certain of its subsidiaries and affiliates are parties to numerous
proceedings instituted by governmental authorities and others under provisions
of applicable laws or regulations relating to the discharge of materials into
the environment. Such environmental proceedings are further discussed herein on
page 19 under Item 3. Legal Proceedings
ITEM 3. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS. Environmental Litigation
Mobil periodically receives notices from the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) or equivalent agencies at the state level that Mobil is a "potentially
responsible party" under Superfund or equivalent state legislation with respect
to various waste disposal sites. The majority of these sites are either still
under investigation by the EPA or the state agencies concerned, or under
remediation, or both. In certain instances, Mobil and other potentially
responsible parties have been named in court or administrative proceedings by
federal or state agencies seeking the cleanup of these sites. Mobil has also
been named as a defendant in various suits brought by private parties alleging
injury from disposal of wastes at these sites. The ultimate impact of these
proceedings on the business or accounts of Mobil cannot be predicted at this
time due to the large number of other potentially responsible parties and the
speculative nature of clean-up cost estimates, but based on our long experience
in managing environmental matters, we do not anticipate that the aggregate level
of future remediation costs will increase above recent levels so as to
materially and adversely affect our consolidated financial position orliquidity.
In a letter to Mobil Oil Corporation dated November 17, 1997, the U.S.
Department of Justice, on its own behalf and on behalf of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, alleged that the operations of the McElmo Creek and
Rutherford production units, which are operated by Mobil Oil Corporation and in
which Mobil Oil Corporation has an interest, had violated the Clean Water Act by
reason of discharges of produced water into navigable waters of the U.S. and had
also violated Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures Regulations
promulgated under the Clean Water Act, and indicated that, inter alia, a penalty
----- ----
of $2.3 million was sought. Settlement negotiations are in process.
In a letter to Mobil Oil Corporation dated September 11, 1997, the U.S.
Department of Justice and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency advised Mobil
Oil Corporation that they are contemplating legal proceedings against Mobil Oil
Corporation in which it would be alleged that the operations of Mobil Oil
Corporation's Torrance, California refinery have violated provisions of the
Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Emergency Planning and Community Right
to Know Act, and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and
Liability Act, and that a penalty would be sought. Mobil Oil Corporation
anticipates that the amount of the penalty that would be sought will be between
$1 million and $2 million. No proceeding has yet been brought.
12. RESTORATION, REMOVAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL LIABILITIES
Exploration and producing properties must generally be restored to their
original condition when the oil or gas reserves are depleted and/or operations
cease. At December 31, 1996 and 1997, $864 million and $780 million,
respectively, had been accrued for restoration and removal costs, mainly related
to offshore producing facilities. The decrease in 1997 from 1996 reflects the
impact of equity accounting for the heavy-oil alliance with Shell in the United
States.
Mobil accrues for its best estimate of the future costs associated with
known environmental remediation requirements at its service stations, marketing
terminals, refineries and plants, and at certain Superfund sites. At December
31, 1996 and 1997, the accumulated reserve for environmental remediation costs
was $460 million and $372 million, respectively. Of these amounts, $84 million
and $80 million were included in current accrued liabilities in the Consolidated
Balance Sheet. Amounts accrued with respect to Superfund waste disposal sites
are based on the company's best estimate of its portion of the costs of
remediating such sites. These amounts are not material.
|
