From: Doug Grandt answerthecall@me.

com
Subject: EPA Methane Leakage Rule Prevails in Court
Date: July 3, 2017 at 5:00 PM
To: Suzanne M. McCarron Suzanne.M.McCarron@ExxonMobil.com
Cc: Darren W. Woods Darren.W.Woods@ExxonMobil.com, William (Bill) M. Colton William.M.Colton@ExxonMobil.com,
jeff.j.woodbury@exxonmobil.com, Susan K. Avery, PhD savery@whoi.edu, Max Schulz max.schulz@exxonmobil.com

Dear Suzanne,

Please blog the truth about methane leakage in ExxonMobilPerspectives.com

ExxonMobil has told me "we don't do business that way" which, by deduction and in context
with your petition to Judge Hand to dismiss on a technicality my Denton County Small Claim
Suit against Rex Tillerson a few years back leads me to conclude the way you do business
is based on technicalities to circumvent the law and regulations, or to bend the law and regs to
your favor by all means necessary.

I "witnessed" an example taught in class while attending Reservoir School in 1971.

Looks like you and the industry lost this one on a technicality touch.

Following are pertinent paragraphs.

Sincerely yours,
Doug Grandt

Court rejects Trump's delay of EPA drilling pollution rule

Timothy Cama - July 3, 2017 - The Hill - Bit.ly/Hill3Jul17

The Trump administration cannot delay an Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) rule limiting methane pollution from oil and natural gas drilling, a federal
court ruled Monday.
In an early court loss for President Trumps aggressive agenda of environmental
deregulation, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit said the EPA
didnt meet the requirements for a 90-day stay of the Obama administrations
methane rule.
methane rule.
The decision means the EPA must immediately start enforcing the standards.
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitts decision to delay enforcement of the provision
was based on arguments that when the Obama administration wrote the rule, it
violated procedures by not allowing stakeholders to comment on some parts of
what became the final regulation. The agency used that reasoning to formally
reconsider the rule and to pause enforcement.
But the court said the argument doesnt withstand scrutiny.
The administrative record thus makes clear that industry groups had ample
opportunity to comment on all four issues on which EPA granted reconsideration,
and indeed, that in several instances the agency incorporated those comments
directly into the final rule, two of the judges on the three-judge panel wrote.
Because it was thus not impracticable for industry groups to have raised such
objections during the notice and comment period [the Clean Air Act] did not
require reconsideration and did not authorize the stay.

Sent from my iPhone (audio texting)