Corporate Responsibility of Oil Companies in Louisiana
Robert Berns
ENVST 406
April 17, 2005
1
The environmental science and environmental studies discipline encompasses a
wide range of subjects and fields of study. In addition to the hard sciences, such as
geology, chemistry, and biology, that provide the scientific data behind environmental
research, social sciences play an important role as well. Politics and law have an
important role to play in the passage of legislation aimed at protecting the environment.
Also important is the field of economics, which relates the corporate perspective into the
level at which they choose to protect, or at leas coexist with the environment. It is this
decision of whether or not corporations choose to maintain the health of the environment
that is the focus of my research, in the concept of corporate responsibility.
Corporate responsibility, or corporate social responsibility, is the responsibility of
a company to be accountable to all of its stakeholders in its operations and activities, with
a goal of sustainability in economic, social and environmental areas. In this definition,
then, corporate responsibility encompasses many concerned parties, such as local
populations and the environment, and not just people who work for or have stock in the
company (Wikipedia 2005). Corporate responsibility takes into account the economic
concept of externalities, which are the costs of an activity that are borne to those outside
of it. Often, corporations achieve higher profits at the expense of the environment, so the
inclusion of this as part of corporate responsibility is, in my view, very important. The
environment is valuable not only for its natural resources, but for the aesthetic values that
parks and scenic landscapes provide, as well as the intrinsic value of nature itself.
Considering these things, corporate responsibility provides an interesting duality between
environmental science and the business world, reflecting feelings that they may not
always be able to co-exist.
2
In Louisiana, the relationship between corporations and the environment is
especially worthy of consideration. Many environmental issues in Louisiana, such as
coastal and wetlands loss, pollution concentrations in the so-called “cancer alley”,
subsidence of land, and environmental legislation and interest groups all revolve around
the notion of corporate responsibility. I have chosen to study how corporate
responsibility relates to the oil industry in particular in Louisiana, where vast amounts of
American oil production occur in the Gulf of Mexico. In particular, I will look at the vast
history of the oil industry in Louisiana, to show how intertwined the state and the oil
industry are, and then describe some of the environmental problems associated with oil
production in Louisiana. Also, I will examine some of the action that both the state and
federal government have taken regarding oil and the oil industry, and some of the ways
that corporations have attempted to give back to Louisiana in ways that may be
considered corporate responsibility. Finally, I will conclude with a discussion of how
this all fits in with a major problem in Louisiana today, coastal loss, which threatens the
lives of thousands of Louisiana people and natural areas in Louisiana as well.
Though much of the oil that Americans consume originates outside our borders, a
fair amount is extracted and produced within America itself. Louisiana is one such
hotbed of oil production, as the favorable geology of the Gulf of Mexico provides an
adequate resource for the oil industry to extract from. Petroleum, the fluid used to
produce oil and gasoline products, is created when marine or lake organisms and
plankton are deposited and accumulate in an anoxic environment, and then become
buried, and subsequently are exposed to heat and pressure. The accumulation of
3
sediments above these living things cause them to break down in conjunction with the
exposure to bacteria and the aforementioned heat and pressure from the overburden,
which leads the organic materials to change into hydrocarbons, which are the molecules
that comprise oil and gas (Key 2005). The beach environment of the Gulf of Mexico is a
perfect place for this process to occur, as the continual action from the Gulf, in addition
to the deposition of sediments from the sizeable Mississippi River, facilitate heat and
pressure of overburden needed. These conditions have allowed for over a century’s
worth of history of the oil industry’s growth in Louisiana, which has developed with the
state over this period of time.
History of the Oil Industry in Louisiana
The search for oil in Louisiana began nearly 140 years ago, when the Louisiana
Oil and Coal Company drilled for oil near Lake Charles. Though this attempt did not
yield any oil, two years later, a night watchman in Shreveport, Louisiana, discovered
natural gas, which is a common fluid found near oil (and is itself a fuel source) that has
gone through a similar process of heat and pressure to leave organic material. The
watchman discovered the natural gas when he lit a match near a well that he was drilling,
and this accident marked the first time that natural gas was found to be a source of heat
(LMOGA highlights 2005). In 1901, the first oil well in Louisiana was discovered at
Jennings field, which is in the northern part of Louisiana (LMOGA overview 2005). This
discovery, known as the Heywood well, was the first discovery of oil in Louisiana in
quantities for commercial use, and thus began the rise of the oil industry in Louisiana
(LMOGA highlights 2005). After this discovery, oil production really began to take off,
in conjunction with great needs for oil that would arise early in the 20th century.
4
The beginning of the 20th century marked a time in American society when
petroleum became the much-needed fuel of choice for powering our many enterprises,
necessitated in particular by the rise of the automobile and the occurrence of two World
Wars in the first half of the century. In 1906, the first law regarding oil and gas
conservation was passed in the Louisiana state legislature (LMOGA highlights 2005).
This law, somewhat ironically, was followed by an increase in discoveries of oil, and oil
production increased as well. Speculative drilling started in Louisiana in the 1920’s, in
bodies of water such as lakes, swamps and bayous, based on the knowledge that oil forms
under the geological conditions of sedimentation and deposition that these places were
known to demonstrate. By the Second World War, government technologies were being
applied in Louisiana to allow for more production of oil, with such things as analysis of
the soil and weather conditions of an area and use of fleet that had survived the war being
some particularly useful examples (MMS 2005). By 1947, discoveries of and drilling for
oil had spread throughout the state of Louisiana (LMOGA highlights 2005), and the first
drill for oil off the coast, out of site of land, was occurring (LMOGA overview 2005).
For the next few years, discoveries of oil in the Gulf of Mexico led to more offshore
drilling, as the need for oil still was not being met. Production of oil in Louisiana
reached its maximum in 1969, at over 725 million barrels of oil, and then began to
decline, until more emphasis on the need for oil led to more exploratory drilling in the
Gulf of Mexico, beginning in 1996 (LMOGA highlights 2005). This sort of need is
demonstrated by some long-range projections of oil need, which by 2023 “could increase
by 33 percent or more than 6 million barrels a day, according to the U.S. Department of
Energy” (Zagier 2003).
5
If the projections set forth by the Department of Energy turn out to be true, the
financial gains to the state of Louisiana could exceed the already high current
approximations. In a fairly recent study, it was found that considering both direct and
indirect impact, the oil and gas industry has an impact of $65 billion on Louisiana, with
the offshore industry alone producing $3 billion worth of impact for the state (LMOGA
overview 2005). These figures demonstrate the type of impact that the oil industry has
had upon Louisiana; in addition to the extensive history that oil production has had in
Louisiana, the monetary income that it generates for the state demonstrate how valuable
the oil industry can be perceived to be therein. In addition to the vast monetary funds that
the oil industry provides for the state of Louisiana, another type of impact to the state is
worthy of consideration, which involves the concept of corporate responsibility: the
impact of the oil industry on the environment of Louisiana.
Environmental Impact of the Oil Industry in Louisiana
While the financial benefits accrued from the rich history of the oil industry in
Louisiana are indeed ample, they do not come without their costs to the environment and
the people of Louisiana. Several environmental problems can result from the extraction,
production, transportation, refining, or use of oil, in addition to pre-existing problems that
are worsened through the processes associated with making oil products commercially
attainable. It is best, then, to look at these problems on a case by case basis:
• Subsidence and Wetland Loss: When oil is extracted from the ground, be it
from an on-shore or off-shore source, the result is that the space that the oil once
occupied is no longer filled. The process of subsidence, where the land lowers in
elevation relative to sea level, is a natural process with many causes, including sea level
6
rise, crustal sinking, tectonic activity, or the compaction of sediments (Mike Andree class
lecture). The processes of subsidence are exacerbated by hydrocarbon extraction and
production, because the voids created by the removed hydrocarbons are subject to
increasing pressure of the overburden (land above them), causing the land to slump. This
process also damages wetlands, because the unstable lands upon which they are settled
sink, and are covered with water, burying the plant life (U.S. GS 2003). This process of
land loss is a serious problem for the people and wildlife of Louisiana, which I will
discuss in the concluding section of the paper.
• Canals and Oil Spills: The transportation of oil from off-shore drilling locations
to sites where it can be refined or sold leads to several possible environmental problems.
In Louisiana, when oil is transported through the watery areas of the bayou, canals are
needed to facilitate this system of travel, which can be problematic for the land, water
and wildlife around them. Canals function as the system of roads for ships in the swamps
of Louisiana that transport oil. To create these canals, the swamps are dredged, removing
soil to allow the boats to fit through, which allows for saltwater intrusion and removal of
vegetation, in addition to creating access for the effects of waves off-shore. As a result,
erosion may be quickened, and the problems of subsidence are made even worse (Kelley
et. Al 1984). This easier access for ships containing oil paves the way for another
significant problem associated with transportation: oil spills.
Oil spills are a common problem from transportation of oil. Oil spills can occur
on boats or through leaky oil pipelines, both of which are damaging to the environment.
In severe cases, such as the 1989 Exxon-Valdez spill, the cleanup resulting from an oil
spill can take years, with high monetary costs and costs to the environment. The Exxon-
7
Valdez spill occurred in the area of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline off the coast of Alaska, on
the night of March 23, 1989. The spill occurred when the ship ran aground at Bligh Reef,
causing 11 million of the more than 53 million gallons of oil that the ship was carrying to
be released into the natural habitat around the reef; part of the reason for the crash has
been attributed to the captain of the ship being supposedly under the influence of alcohol
at the time of the spill. The spill impacted over 1300 miles of the 9000 miles of coastline
in the region, with the size of the oil slick being around 460 miles. Exxon spent over 4
years and about $2.1 billion in costs to clean up the spill, before efforts were finally
abandoned (EVOSTC), which hints at deficiencies in corporate responsibility, because
the job was never fully completed. This case set precedents for the legislation
surrounding oil spill cleanups, which I will discuss in the next section. It also provides an
interesting comparison to another oil spill, which occurred in Lake Barre, Louisiana.
The oil spill in Lake Barre, Louisiana by Texaco is much different than that of the
Exxon-Valdez, particularly in the controlled nature in which it occurred. The Lake Barre
spill was caused by a rupture in the Texaco oil pipeline near Cocodrie, Louisiana, which
occurred on May 16, 1997. The rupture(34 inches by 2 inches) caused the release of
about 210,000 gallons of oil, half of which was able to be recovered. Texaco shut down
the pipeline within ten minutes, after a drop in pressure in the pipeline was discovered,
while an oil slick of dimensions 7 miles by 2 miles formed on the Lake. Cleanup of the
spill lasted for slightly over a month (May 18-June 20), and cost Texaco around $9.8
million. The costs were split 3 ways: 74% of the costs went to Cenac Environmental,
whom Texaco subcontracted out to for cleanup; about 25% went to local businesses to
pay for damages; also, less than 1% of the costs went to individuals for damages. The
8
spill received little notice or public opinion from local citizens, with the exception of the
oyster and shrimp industries, who have claimed that their industries for the season were
damaged enough that they could not conduct harvests, The effects of this spill were
minimized for several reasons, including the relative geographic isolation of where the
spill occurred, and the fact that a task force has been set up in Louisiana to deal with
spills quickly, should they occur (Pulsipher et. al, 1999). Though these are two extremely
different examples of the kind of damage an oil spill can create for an environment, they
show the wide range of effects a spill can have. Oil spills come in all shapes and sizes,
and although they can only be avoided by a cessation of producing and transportation of
oil, which is highly unlikely, they can be minimized with the principles of corporate
responsibility and quick response in mind.
• Industrial Pollution and Cancer Alley: One of the most frustrating problems of
many types of industry is how to produce things without polluting the air, water or land
of the surrounding environment. In Louisiana, where the oil and chemical industries are
strongly concentrated, this is especially true. Cancer Alley, the common nickname given
to the area along the Mississippi River between Baton Rouge and New Orleans where
petrochemical industry is concentrated, is an example of lack of corporate responsibility
run amok, resulting in serious effects for the surrounding environment. Cancer Alley has
seven oil refineries, as well as anywhere from 175 to 350 industrial plants located in it,
causing dreadful health effects of anything from asthma to high rates of cancer in the
area. Worse still, the national cancer registry, which recognizes the high rates here,
chooses to assess the incidences as a result of such things as poverty and lifestyle choices,
as well as purely randomness. Part of the reason why research has not shown a
9
connection between the industrial concentration here and the high rates of disease is the
fact that industries donate high amounts of money to local universities like Tulane
(Koeppel 1999), as a way of limiting their responsibility to the local people. In this and
the other cases of environmental damage caused by oil companies, then, perhaps the best
way to ensure corporate responsibility is through environmental legislation put forth by
the various levels of government. My next section will discuss in detail some of the
action that state and federal government have put forth to ensure responsible corporate
behavior, and how it applies to the oil industry in Louisiana.
Government Action Regarding the Oil Industry
Although the principles of corporate responsibility suggest that corporations
should be able to conduct business in cooperation with the world around them, sometimes
this is not the case. Situations where the environment suffers a detrimental impact from
the work of the business world give rise to instances where the government must step in
to ensure that the natural world and local people are protected. In the case of the oil
industry, particularly, the result is government environmental policy, which seeks to
solve problems of such things as pollution and environmental degradation while still
being flexible over time. Many government acts have been passed that seek to alleviate
damage to the environment, but it would be difficult to describe each individual one. In
this section, I will give an explanation of some of the more pertinent legislation and
action taken by the government to ensure the responsible behavior of the oil industry.
In cleaning up the Exxon-Valdez oil spill I provided earlier, as well as others
subsequent to it, several different environmental legislation acts provide cleanup
parameters. The 1972 federal Clean Water Act was set up to protect navigable waters
10
and adjoining shorelines from pollution. In particular, section 311 deals with oil and
hazardous substance releases, assigning responsibility to both the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) and the Coast Guard to prepare for and
respond to oil spills (U.S. EPA 2004). The CERCLA, or Superfund Act of 1986 is
considered the right-to-know act, and it involves reporting hazardous substances from a
designated list that are released above a certain quantity (EHSO 2005), which may
include oil spills. In addition, this act can be applied to production plants like oil
refineries that release hazardous chemicals. The 1990 Oil Pollution Act, created in
response to the Exxon Valdez spill, is aimed at strengthening EPA response to oil spills,
including establishing a trust fund, based on oil taxes, which is put towards cleaning up
oil spills (U.S. EPA 2005). Also, the National Marine Sanctuaries Act, which is part of
the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, applies to oil spills. This
act gives authority to the Secretary of Commerce to designate and manage the marine
environment in areas that have a significant objective to protect marine resources (NOAA
2002). Organizations within the government, such as the Louisiana Oil Spill
Coordinator’s Office and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s
Damage Assessment and Restoration Program, act as trustees to ensure that the acts are
followed, marine resources are cared for, and the public are compensated for the loss of
these resources. LOSCO does this at the Louisiana state level (LOSCO 2004), and
NOAA’s DARP is a federal government level equivalent that provides similar function
(NOAA 2004).
In addition to the national acts that include language relating to incidences of oil
spills, Louisiana has sought to further regulate the possibility of oil spills with legislation
11
at the state level. The 2001 Louisiana Oil Spill Prevention and Response Act covers
these incidents, as they occur in Louisiana. This act continues the work of the groups
acting at the state and federal levels, and outlines such things as a contingency plan for
oil spills in Louisiana, assignment of liabilities, and outlines action plans for response to
and prevention of oil spills. In addition, the act assigns a need for federal funds to carry
out its responsibilities, should the funds be available at the time (Louisiana Oil Spill Act
2001).
Though oil spills are a common problem that oil companies are scrutinized for
and subject the companies to litigation, other questionable practices can lead to
government action. As one example, Shell has faced numerous fines in recent years for
various things. The United States Justice Department ruled that Shell must pay $49
million in 2003 for flaring gas in the Gulf of Mexico, as well as failing to properly report
it as royalties in a lease that Shell received. Shell has a history of doing this, in that it
was fined $56 million in 2000 and $110 million in 2001 for similar incidences (D.O.J.
2003). This is just one example of the substantial monetary penalties that the federal
government has handed out to oil companies for actions deemed to be improper corporate
responsibility.
One final area to examine in terms of federal and state government action as it
applies to oil companies involves environmental justice, and the Louisiana example of
Cancer Alley. Environmental justice can be described as an offshoot of corporate
responsibility that seeks to eliminate the concentration of industry with detrimental health
effects in areas that have people of minority races, low incomes, or other circumstances
that would allow them a disproportionately low representation in government. In
12
essence, environmental justice seeks to level the playing field as far as where industrial
corporations will situate themselves. Former President Bill Clinton put forth an
executive order in 1994 aimed at ensuring that environmental justice is a consideration
for new industry. The executive order constructed a working group, comprised of several
different government organizations, whose responsibilities included identifying situations
where environmental injustice may be possible, researching them, and working within a
given time table to develop and alleviate the possible environmental justice violations
(Clinton 1994). In Cancer Alley, however, where seven oil refineries and several
hundred industrial plants are concentrated, environmental justice seems to be failing. The
presence of cancer clusters, such as Denham Springs and Walker, where rates of
neuroblastomas are between 120 and 200 times higher than what they would naturally be,
hints at a problem. In fact, several employees of the Tumor Registry, who collect these
figures, have suggested that they believe these concentrations are not just random
occurrences, as the chemical industries make them out to be (Koeppel 1999). Cancer
Alley is one example of how environmental legislation is failing in some cases, and
suggests that corporate responsibility cannot always be forced. Instead, in some cases,
corporations must take their own initiative to contribute to a clean environment, as the
next section will discuss.
Corporate Donations to and Participation by Oil Companies in Environmental
Causes
Whether it is for public relations purposes, government penalty, or out of a
genuine concern for the environment, corporations contribute to causes that aim to
preserve the environment. There are several ways in which corporations make these
13
contributions. Corporate donations of profits towards various environmental causes is
perhaps the easiest to understand, but there are others as well. In some cases,
corporations form partnerships with citizen environmental organizations, contributing
materials and funds to the work of these organizations. Also, corporations can participate
in programs within their industry to strive towards more responsible corporate behavior,
in conjunction with other corporations. Examples of each of these types of
environmentally-focused corporate activities have occurred in Louisiana, each of which I
will describe.
As is the case with many oil companies, Royal Dutch/Shell Energy has devoted a
section of its website to discussing the importance of the environment to the business it
conducts. Among the points of interest on the site, Shell has a section on the
environment and society, which includes information on how it has worked towards
sustainable development, policies and standards it uses in regard to the environment, and
records of how it is performing in conjunction with the environment (Shell 2005). This
information relates to the public how Shell plans to carry out responsibility, including the
various actions it chooses to take. For example, Shell has shown activity recently in
Louisiana in partnership with the America’s Wetlands: Campaign to Save Coastal
Louisiana program, providing funds to the program on two occasions. In August 2002,
Shell donated $3 million to America’s Wetlands’ educational fund (Shell 2002), and it
also donated $800,000 in 2004 to the program for educational materials distribution
(CSRwire 2004). The America’s Wetlands program raises awareness on the significance,
both economically and ecologically, of the Louisiana coast (Shell 2002). Though
speculations may abound over the motives for these contributions, as to whether the
14
materials absolve oil companies from responsibility, the willingness of Shell to contribute
to awareness of environmental problems, consistent with its corporate policy, should be
seen as a step in the right direction.
Perhaps in an effort to make public its efforts of corporate responsibility, Exxon
Mobil publishes its corporate donations, and includes them on its website. In a recent
year, 2003, Exxon Mobil donated $106 million in contributions, with 72.6 million going
to recipients in the United States. Unfortunately, donations to the “Environment”
category were the lowest of the categories in both cases, with $1.2 million (2% of total)
going towards this section in the United States, and $4 million (4% of total) going
towards this section throughout the world (see Figures 1 and 2 for comparison). Some of
the environmental causes in Louisiana that Exxon Mobil donated to included the Baton
Rouge Area Foundation, for Summits for America’s Wetland; the Grand Isle Port
Commission for the Grand Isle Butterfly Dome; the Nature Conservancy, Inc. of Baton
Rouge; the St. Bernard Wetlands Foundation in Meraux, LA for a fish nursery, and
finally a donation to the State of Louisiana for conservation of Catahoula Lake. Outside
of Louisiana, Exxon has donated to several universities for scientific research, various
natural groups and trusts, and organizations looking to protect endangered species (Exxon
Mobil 2003). Though these efforts to donate to environmental causes are on the low end
of the donations, they represent a starting point, towards what may one day be greater
donations by Exxon towards preserving the environment.
The third possible plan of action for corporations who seek to improve the
environment is commitments within an industry towards a common goal. In some cases,
this is a voluntary agreement, such as the Louisiana Environmental Leadership Pollution
15
Prevention Program. This program is designed for industries in Louisiana to apply and
agree to reduce the level of pollution they produce, in a show of responsibility to the
environment. The guiding principles include reducing waste through following the waste
hierarchy, using internal measures to regulate and improve environmental performance,
communication with people associated with the company to identify areas where the
corporation can improve its interaction with the environment, and prioritizing human and
environmental health (LA DEQ 2005). Louisiana has had several oil companies, both
large and small, participate in this program: Chevron, CITGO, Exxon Mobil (4 different
facilities), Motiva, Shell (2 different facilities) and Tosco Refining (LA DEQ 2002).
That so many different oil companies are interested in working towards lower pollution
displays what hopefully will become a larger trend: corporate responsibility within
industries that is not forced by the hand of government.
Conclusion: Louisiana Land Loss and the Future of Corporate Responsibility
Though there are many problems facing the state of Louisiana and its people and
natural areas, one pressing problem stands to leave the state in a position of severe ruin if
it is not dealt with appropriately. The southern coastal areas of Louisiana, commonly
referred to as bayous, are continuing to experience a loss of land, which is being replaced
by watery areas. This area loses land at a rate of 25-35 square miles per year, with
projections for 2050 suggesting a loss of another 1000 square miles (LA Coast 2000).
Many factors have contributed to this intrusion of the sea, including subsidence, canals
constructed for oil barges, loss of barrier islands, and lack of stable wetlands. One chief
culprit, however, is the diversion of the Mississippi River, which has limited the
16
effectiveness of its sedimentation by causing it to go into the Gulf of Mexico, where it is
not needed. There is much that needs to be done in order to fix this problem.
In his book Bayou Farewell, author Mike Tidwell describes his journey to the
backwaters of Louisiana, where the true measure of the coastal loss is being felt. Tidwell
describes the conditions and lifestyles of the local people of this region, and the unique
indigenous Cajun culture which they live by. He also describes a feeling of hopelessness
that these people have when they think about the problem at hand. Finally, Tidwell
mentions some of the efforts that have been devised to correct the problem. Among
them, he includes diversion of the Mississippi again to bring its water back to the
Terrabonne and Barataria bays, where it is needed. The Louisiana government has
provided $40 million per year to rebuild the estuaries of the area, but Tidwell mentions
that the full-scale plan, including diversion of the Mississippi, would cost $14 billion
over 50 years. Tidwell estimates that not enacting this plan, however, would be even
more devastating, at $100 billion over the same time period (Tidwell 2003, 131-135).
This is not the only proposed solution, but it gives one an idea of how serious the
problem is in Louisiana, and the scale of projects that would be needed to fix it. Though
the oil companies cannot be expected to fund all of this bill, their contributions to the
problem have been explained in my paper. In order to display corporate responsibility to
the local people whose livelihood depends on the wetlands, it is imperative that oil
companies and other corporations in Louisiana as well step forward and work with the
government and the local people to ensure that something is done to solve this problem.
There are many ways for the people and industry to work together to help save their
coast, and it all starts with cooperation and responsibility.
17
Figures
Exxon Mobil 2003 Contributions in U.S. (in
millions of dollars, with percents)
5.7, 8%
13.4, 18%
6.4, 9%
Arts and Culture
Civic and Community
Environment
13.9, 19%
29.6, 41%
1.2, 2%
Health
Total Education
Policy Research
United Appeals
2.4, 3%
figure 1- Exxon Mobil 2003 U.S. corporate contributions (modified from Exxon Mobil 2003 Corporate
donations report)
Exxon Worldwide Donations for 2003 (In millions
of dollars, with percents)
6.5, 6%
15.3, 15%
6.8, 7%
Arts and Culture
Civic and Community
Environment
Health
26, 25%
37, 36%
Total Education
Policy Research
United Appeals
4, 4%
7.4, 7%
figure 2- Exxon Mobil 2003 worldwide corporate contributions (modified from Exxon Mobil 2003
Corporate donations report)
18
Works Cited
1. Andree, Mike. Class Presentation: Subsidence (From Dickinson College ES 406
2005 Spring Semester Senior Seminar)
2. Clinton, William J. Executive Order: Federal Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Popuations and Low-Income Populations. February 11, 1994.
Available online at:
http://fs.fed.us/land/envjust.html
3. Corporate Social Responsibility Newswire Service. Shell Partners with The
America’s WETLAND Campaign and the State of Louisiana to Support ‘EcoCultural’ Tourism Initiative. October 26, 2004.
Available online at:
http://www.csrwire.com/article.cgi/3170.html
4. Environment, Health and Safety Online. Everything You Need to Know About
Spills. EHSO website, updated April 5, 2005. Available online at:
http://www.ehso.com/Spills.htm
5. Exxon Mobil Corporation. Exxon Mobil Corporation 2003 Donations. Available
online at:
http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/files/corporate/giving_report.pdf
6. Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council. Oil Spill Facts> Questions and
Answers. EVOSTC 2005. Available online at:
http://www.evostc.state.ak.us/facts/qanda.html
7. The Foundations Center. Shell Oil Company Foundation Gives $3 Million to
Louisiana Wetlands Campaign. August 29, 2002. Available online at:
http://www.fdncenter.org/pnd/news/story.jhtml?id=12000004
8. Kelley, Joseph T., et. Al. Living with the Louisiana Shore. Duke University
Press: Durham, NC 1984.
9. Key, Marcus. GEOL 202: Energy Resources Class Notes, Spring Semester 2005,
Dickinson College.
10. Koeppel, Barbara. “Cancer Alley Louisiana”. The Nation v. 269, no 15. 1999.
11. LA Coast. WDRA Funding: A Crucial Step in Saving Louisiana’s Coast. LA
Coast 2000. Available online at:
http://www.lacoast.gov/watermarks/2001-10/1wrda/
19
12. Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality. The Louisiana Environmental
Leadership Pollution Partnership Program. Louisiana Department of
Environmental Quality; last updated July 30, 2002. Available online at:
http://www.deq.state.la.us/assistance/elp/elppart.htm
13. Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality. Environmental Leadership
Program. Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality 2005. Available
online at:
http://www.deq.state.la.us/assistance/elp/elpinfo.htm
14. Louisiana Mid-Continent Oil and Gas Association. Historical Highlights for the
LA Oil and Gas Industry: A Remarkable Past—An Exciting Future. LMOGA
2005. Available online at:
http://www.lmoga.com/history.htm
15. Louisiana Mid-Continent Oil and Gas Association. LA Oil and Gas Industry
Overview. LMOGA 2005. Available online at:
http://www.lmoga.com/industryoverview.html
16. Louisiana Oil Spill Coordinator’s Office. Protecting Louisiana’s Citizens and
Environment from the Effects of Oil Spills. LOSCO 2005. Available online at:
http://www.losco.state.la.us/
17. Louisiana Oil Spill Prevention Act 2001. Available Online at:
http://www.darp.noaa.gov/partner/rrpp-la/pdf/laospra.pdf
18. Minerals Management Service. History of the Offshore Oil and Gas Development
in Louisiana. MMS 2005. Available online at:
http://www.gomr.mms.gov/homepg/regulate/environ/louisiana_coast.html
19. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Legislation: National Marine
Sanctuaries Act. NOAA 2002. Available online at:
http://www.sanctuaries.nos.noaa.gov/natprogram/nplegislation/nplegislationact.ht
ml
20. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. About the DARP. NOAA
2004. Available online at:
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/habitat/restoration/projects_programs/darp/about.html
21. Pulsipher, Allan G.; Tootle, Deborah; Pincomb, Richard. Economic and social
consequences of the oil spill in Lake Barre, Louisiana. U.S.Department of the
Interior, Minerals Management Serice, Resource Evaluation, 1997.
22. Royal Dutch/ Shell Oil website.2005. Available online at:
http://www.shell.com/home/Framework?siteId=home
20
23. Scher Zagier, Alan. Deep Trouble: Louisiana’s Oil Legacy. Naples Daily News.
October 1, 2003. Available online at:
http://web.naplesnews.com/03/10/naples/e1666a.htm
24. Tidwell, Mike. Bayou Farewell. 2003, Vintage Books: New York.
25. United States Department of Justice. Shell Oil Company Agrees to Pay $49
Million for Unauthorized Venting and Flaring of Gas. August 5, 2003. Available
online at:
http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2003/August/03_civ_446.htm
25. United State Environmental Protection Agency. Clean Water Act Overview. U.S.
EPA 2004. Available online at:
http://www.epa.gov/oilspill/cwaover.htm
26. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Finding Answers: Oil Pollution
Act. U.S. EPA 2005. Available online at:
http://www.epa.gov/region5/defs/html/opa.htm
27. United States Geological Survey. Wetland Subsidence, Fault Reactivation, and
Hydrocarbon Production in the U.S. Gulf Coast Region: USGS Fact Sheet FS091-01. U.S. GS 2003. Available online at:
http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs091-01/
28. Wikipedia. Corporate Social Responsibility. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
2005. Available online at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_social_responsibility
21