North Jersey has been an epicenter of manufacturing, refining, and shipping since the Industrial Age. However, the region’s propensity towards those three fields has led to a vast number of environmental problems in northern cities. In a recent case spanning from 2004 to 2015, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) charged the Exxon Mobil Corporation with the contamination of soil and groundwater via oil spills. Although the state settled that Exxon would pay $225 million for its damages, environmental groups like the New Jersey Sierra Club still find the agreement as too lax. In order to create a better course of action, it is important to understand the case and the perspectives of some parties involved with the case.
…show more content…
These two refinery sites have faced an immense amount of environmental damage. The Bayonne site has seven million gallons of oil in its soil and groundwater; the Platty Kill Canal has such a tremendous amount of contamination that Exxon recommended permanently closing down the canal; the former wetlands in the area are now referred to as ‘tar flats’ (Anzaldi 2). Exxon does not deny the wide reaching impacts that the oil spill has had on the environment or even if the spilled substances that contaminated the land and water were hazardous. At the end of the day, it’s all about the money and how much it will take to make the entire incident dissipate into the past. The case had begun with DEP charging Exxon with $8.9 billion worth of damages. Over the course of the decade, from 2004 to early 2015, the state finally settled for a meager $225 million, a far cry from the original compensation target. The disappointing settlement caused an uproar amongst the environmental community, with folks like Potter calling the settlement as mere “pocket change for Exxon” (Potter
These two refinery sites have faced an immense amount of environmental damage. The Bayonne site has seven million gallons of oil in its soil and groundwater; the Platty Kill Canal has such a tremendous amount of contamination that Exxon recommended permanently closing down the canal; the former wetlands in the area are now referred to as ‘tar flats’ (Anzaldi 2). Exxon does not deny the wide reaching impacts that the oil spill has had on the environment or even if the spilled substances that contaminated the land and water were hazardous. At the end of the day, it’s all about the money and how much it will take to make the entire incident dissipate into the past. The case had begun with DEP charging Exxon with $8.9 billion worth of damages. Over the course of the decade, from 2004 to early 2015, the state finally settled for a meager $225 million, a far cry from the original compensation target. The disappointing settlement caused an uproar amongst the environmental community, with folks like Potter calling the settlement as mere “pocket change for Exxon” (Potter