Corporate Misconduct Accountability Project
ConocoPhillips Company · EPA Administrative Enforcement Order and Consent Agreement
ConocoPhillips Caught Leaking Toxic Fumes at Texas Oil Sites
EPA helicopter flyovers revealed unlit flares and open tank hatches releasing dangerous emissions at multiple Texas Permian Basin facilities, exposing nearby communities to harmful air pollutants.
HIGH SEVERITY
TL;DR
In August and September 2020, EPA helicopter flyovers using infrared cameras caught ConocoPhillips releasing illegal emissions at eight oil and gas production facilities in the Texas Permian Basin. Investigators found unlit flares that should have been burning toxic gases, open tank hatches leaking vapors, and malfunctioning pollution control equipment. The company only fixed the problems after getting caught, then paid a $490,000 penalty while neither admitting nor denying the violations.
This is what happens when profit comes before people. Companies cut corners on pollution controls until someone catches them.
8
Facilities caught violating air quality rules
$490,000
Civil penalty paid by ConocoPhillips
12 months
Required monitoring period for compliance
The Allegations: A Breakdown
Core Allegations
What they did · 8 points
| 01 | ConocoPhillips operated flares without continuously burning pilot lights at multiple facilities, allowing toxic volatile organic compounds to vent directly into the air instead of being burned. EPA helicopter cameras captured these unlit flares at the Ramsey WC 22-1H Battery, Ramsey 10-1H Battery, TB-Cherry Pie-57-T1-20-A, and El Jefe Tank Battery between August 25 and September 3, 2020. | high |
| 02 | The company left storage tank hatches open or improperly sealed, releasing large volumes of hydrocarbon vapors. Inspectors documented leaking hatches at the Texas 6 WF1 facility, Rustler Hills 7-1H and 2H Battery, and North Water Transfer Station. | high |
| 03 | ConocoPhillips failed to properly maintain vapor recovery systems designed to capture and control emissions from oil and gas production equipment. The company violated requirements to keep all emissions control equipment in good condition and operated properly. | high |
| 04 | The company operated equipment inconsistent with the operating procedures and emission rates listed in their certified air permit registrations. This violated Texas regulations making all permit representations binding conditions of operation. | medium |
| 05 | ConocoPhillips did not ensure that seals and gaskets in volatile organic compound service were properly maintained to prevent leaking. Tank hatches remained open outside of permitted sampling, gauging, loading, unloading, or planned maintenance activities. | medium |
| 06 | The company only took corrective actions after EPA confronted them with video evidence of the violations. ConocoPhillips provided information about completed corrective actions on January 8, 2021, more than four months after the helicopter inspections. | medium |
| 07 | EPA found emissions from process equipment and vapor recovery systems that the company had not authorized or permitted. These unauthorized releases violated both federal Clean Air Act requirements and Texas State Implementation Plan rules. | high |
| 08 | At the Battleship Central Facility, inspectors observed emissions from compressor vents. The pattern of violations across eight separate facilities between August and September 2020 suggests systemic compliance failures rather than isolated incidents. | medium |
Regulatory Failures
How they got away with it · 6 points
| 01 | ConocoPhillips operated these facilities for an unknown period before EPA deployed specialized helicopter-based infrared cameras to detect the invisible emissions. Without this expensive detection technology, the violations would have remained hidden from standard ground-level inspections. | high |
| 02 | EPA took nearly a year to issue the formal Notice of Violation after the August-September 2020 helicopter inspections, not sending it until July 20, 2021. During this gap, the company continued operating the facilities. | medium |
| 03 | The consent agreement allowed ConocoPhillips to neither admit nor deny the alleged violations. This standard settlement language lets corporations avoid damaging admissions of wrongdoing even when caught with video evidence. | medium |
| 04 | The $490,000 penalty represents a fraction of what a multibillion-dollar energy company earns. EPA and the Department of Justice jointly determined this case appropriate for administrative penalty assessment despite violations occurring more than a year before proceedings began and involving penalties above the typical threshold. | medium |
| 05 | Texas regulations require oil and gas facilities to operate with all emissions control equipment maintained in good condition, yet enforcement depends heavily on operators self-reporting problems. The permit-by-rule system allows facilities to operate under general permits rather than facility-specific oversight. | medium |
| 06 | The settlement requires only twelve months of enhanced monitoring after the violations were discovered. After that period ends, the facilities revert to standard oversight with the same limitations that allowed the initial violations. | low |
Profit Over People
The corporate calculus · 5 points
| 01 | ConocoPhillips avoided the costs of maintaining continuously burning pilot lights on flares, properly sealing tank hatches, and keeping vapor recovery systems in good working order. These routine maintenance expenses apparently exceeded the company’s perceived risk of getting caught and fined. | high |
| 02 | Installing and operating the required emissions control equipment demands ongoing investments in equipment upgrades, regular maintenance and repairs, staff training, and continuous monitoring technology. Each dollar spent on compliance is a dollar not flowing to shareholders. | medium |
| 03 | The settlement requires ConocoPhillips to conduct monthly optical gas imaging surveys for one year, install tank pressure monitors, and install combustion control device monitors. The company only agreed to these measures after getting caught, revealing they were technically and financially feasible all along. | high |
| 04 | For purposes of federal tax law, the settlement specifies that penalties paid are not tax deductible, but the compliance measures qualify as restitution, remediation, or required to come into compliance. This distinction allows the company to write off the cost of fixes they should have made in the first place. | medium |
| 05 | The consent agreement extends the statute of limitations for the violations, giving ConocoPhillips more time to complete required monitoring while protecting EPA’s ability to pursue additional enforcement. This tolling period acknowledges the violations may have caused ongoing harm requiring extended oversight. | low |
Public Health and Safety
Real harm to real people · 5 points
| 01 | Volatile organic compounds released from the ConocoPhillips facilities contribute to ground-level ozone formation and can cause respiratory problems, headaches, and other health effects. Communities near these Permian Basin sites faced repeated exposure while the violations continued undetected. | high |
| 02 | The Clean Air Act aims to protect and enhance air quality to promote public health and welfare. ConocoPhillips undermined these protections by failing to control emissions at facilities located in areas where people live and work. | high |
| 03 | Workers at these facilities faced elevated exposure risks from uncontrolled vapor emissions. When flares go unlit and vapors accumulate, workers suffer the most direct contact with dangerous compounds that can cause both immediate and long-term health problems. | high |
| 04 | The settlement requires enhanced monitoring going forward, implicitly acknowledging that standard operating procedures were insufficient to protect air quality. Nearby residents had no way to know they were breathing elevated pollution levels during the violation period. | medium |
| 05 | Oil and gas production facilities often locate near rural or disadvantaged communities with limited political power and healthcare access. These populations bear disproportionate health burdens when companies cut corners on emission controls. | medium |
Corporate Accountability Failures
Who faces consequences · 6 points
| 01 | No individual executives or site managers faced personal liability for the violations. The corporate entity paid the penalty while the people who made decisions to operate deficient equipment faced no consequences. | high |
| 02 | The consent agreement required EPA and the Department of Justice to jointly determine this matter appropriate for administrative penalty assessment. This high-level approval process for cases involving penalties above $446,456 and violations more than a year old added layers of bureaucracy before any enforcement. | medium |
| 03 | ConocoPhillips agreed the consent agreement constitutes an enforcement action for purposes of considering the company’s compliance history in future cases. However, the settlement resolves only the specific violations alleged, leaving the company free to commit new violations at other facilities. | medium |
| 04 | The settlement allows ConocoPhillips to transfer ownership or control of the facilities if the company notifies EPA and provides the new owner a copy of the consent agreement. This provision enables corporations to sell off problem assets while limiting their own ongoing obligations. | medium |
| 05 | If ConocoPhillips fails to pay the penalty on time, the company owes interest, nonpayment penalties after 90 days, and processing costs including attorney fees. Yet even these escalating consequences pale compared to daily revenue for a major energy corporation. | low |
| 06 | The consent agreement explicitly states it does not restrict EPA’s authority to seek compliance with any applicable laws or regulations beyond the specific violations alleged. This disclaimer reveals that settlements resolve only the misconduct discovered, not the full scope of potential wrongdoing. | low |
Community Impact
The people left behind · 5 points
| 01 | Residents near the eight ConocoPhillips facilities had no notification that they were breathing elevated pollution levels while the violations occurred. They only learned about the emissions problems nearly a year after the helicopter inspections when EPA issued the formal notice of violation. | high |
| 02 | The Permian Basin communities hosting these oil and gas facilities see minimal economic benefit from corporate profits that flow to distant shareholders and executives. Local populations provide land and accept environmental burdens while wealth concentrates elsewhere. | medium |
| 03 | Property values near industrial facilities can decline due to pollution concerns, and local agriculture or tourism suffers from real or perceived contamination. These economic harms compound the direct health impacts on frontline communities. | medium |
| 04 | The settlement includes no direct compensation or health monitoring for affected community members. All penalty money goes to the federal treasury rather than supporting medical care or environmental remediation for those who bore the actual costs of the violations. | high |
| 05 | Under the new monitoring requirements, ConocoPhillips must conduct monthly optical gas imaging surveys and install continuous pressure and combustion monitors. However, the company uploads this data to EPA rather than making it publicly accessible to nearby residents in real time. | medium |
Exploiting Delay
How time favors corporations · 5 points
| 01 | ConocoPhillips received notice of potential violations in December 2020 when EPA sent optical gas imaging video captures and requested corrective action. The company took until January 8, 2021, to provide information about fixes, allowing weeks of continued violations. | medium |
| 02 | EPA sent the formal Notice of Violation and Opportunity to Confer on July 20, 2021, more than ten months after the helicopter inspections documented the emissions. This delay gave the company nearly a year to continue operations before facing formal enforcement. | high |
| 03 | The parties negotiated for more than three years after the initial violations before signing the consent agreement in August 2024. During this extended settlement period, the violations receded from public attention while the company continued normal operations. | high |
| 04 | The settlement provides 30 days for penalty payment, 60 days to complete facility reviews and site inspections, 90 days to finish engineering assessments, and one full year to submit a comprehensive letter report. Each deadline pushes accountability further into the future. | medium |
| 05 | ConocoPhillips agreed to toll the statute of limitations for the violations during the monitoring period. This concession benefits EPA by preserving enforcement options, but it also extends the timeline before the company faces finality and can move past the violations. | low |
The Bottom Line
What this case reveals · 6 points
| 01 | ConocoPhillips only installed proper monitoring equipment and fixed emission control problems after EPA deployed expensive helicopter surveillance and caught them on camera. The violations prove that self-regulation fails without robust independent oversight. | high |
| 02 | A $490,000 penalty for a multibillion-dollar corporation amounts to a minor cost of doing business. Without penalties that genuinely threaten profits or personal consequences for decision-makers, companies will continue calculating that noncompliance makes financial sense. | high |
| 03 | The eight facilities violated air quality rules designed to protect public health, yet no provision in the settlement compensates affected community members or provides health monitoring for those who breathed elevated pollution levels. Corporate accountability stops at the corporate treasury. | high |
| 04 | This case required specialized detection technology, nearly a year of investigation, multi-year settlement negotiations, and ongoing monitoring requirements. The resource-intensive process reveals how difficult and rare meaningful environmental enforcement remains even with clear evidence. | medium |
| 05 | The settlement neither admits nor denies wrongdoing, resolves only the specific facilities and timeframes alleged, and allows the company to continue operations with enhanced monitoring for just twelve months. This limited accountability leaves the door open for future violations at other locations. | medium |
| 06 | ConocoPhillips agreed to comprehensive facility reviews, engineering assessments, and continuous monitoring that should have been standard practice all along. The settlement proves the company possessed the technical and financial capability to comply but chose not to until forced. | high |
Timeline of Events
August 25-September 3, 2020
EPA helicopter flyovers using optical gas imaging cameras document emissions violations at eight ConocoPhillips facilities in the Texas Permian Basin
December 11, 2020
EPA sends ConocoPhillips video evidence of unauthorized hydrocarbon emissions and requests corrective action
January 8, 2021
ConocoPhillips provides information about corrective actions completed at the facilities
July 20, 2021
EPA issues formal Notice of Violation and Opportunity to Confer to ConocoPhillips and the State of Texas
August 11, 2022
EPA confers with ConocoPhillips regarding the violations and provides opportunity to submit additional information
August 19, 2024
ConocoPhillips signs Consent Agreement agreeing to pay $490,000 penalty and implement enhanced monitoring
August 20, 2024
EPA Director of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Division signs Consent Agreement
Direct Quotes from the Legal Record
QUOTE 1
Flares without pilot lights
allegations
“Flares shall be equipped with a continuously burning pilot or other automatic ignition system that assures gas ignition.”
💡 This basic safety requirement prevents toxic gases from venting directly into the air, yet ConocoPhillips failed to maintain lit pilots at multiple facilities.
QUOTE 2
All control equipment must work properly
allegations
“The emissions from the facility shall comply with all rules and regulations of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality and with the intent of the Texas Clean Air Act, including protection of health and property of the public, and all emissions control equipment shall be maintained in good condition and operated properly during operation of the facility.”
💡 This sweeping requirement means ConocoPhillips violated the foundational obligation to keep pollution controls working.
QUOTE 3
Permit terms are binding
allegations
“All representations with regard to construction plans, operating procedures, and maximum emission rates in any certified registration under this section become conditions upon which the facility permitted by rule shall be constructed and operated.”
💡 Companies cannot simply ignore the operating procedures they submitted to get their permits approved.
QUOTE 4
Changes require prior approval
regulatory
“It shall be unlawful for any person to vary from such representation if the change will cause a change in the method of control of emissions, the character of the emissions, or will result in an increase in the discharge of the various emissions, unless the certified registration is first revised.”
💡 ConocoPhillips operated equipment differently than permitted without getting approval first.
QUOTE 5
Hatches must stay closed
allegations
“Tank hatches must remain closed except for sampling, gauging, loading, unloading, or planned maintenance activities.”
💡 Open hatches release vapors directly to the atmosphere instead of routing them to control devices.
QUOTE 6
Flares must stay lit
allegations
“Flares must be lit at all times when gas streams are present.”
💡 An unlit flare is just a vent pipe releasing toxic gases without any treatment.
QUOTE 7
Corporate admission waiver
accountability
“Respondent neither admits nor denies the specific factual allegations contained in the CAFO.”
💡 This standard settlement language allows corporations to avoid admitting wrongdoing even when caught with video evidence.
QUOTE 8
Only specific violations resolved
accountability
“Completion of the terms of this CAFO resolves only Respondent’s liability for federal civil penalties for the violations and facts specifically alleged in Sections D and E above.”
💡 The settlement covers only the eight facilities and timeframes alleged, leaving the company free to violate elsewhere.
QUOTE 9
Enforcement action on record
accountability
“This CAFO constitutes an enforcement action for purposes of considering Respondent’s compliance history in any subsequent enforcement action.”
💡 Future violations will be treated more seriously, but only if EPA catches them and chooses to factor in this history.
QUOTE 10
Corrective action only after detection
delay_tactics
“On January 8, 2021, Respondent provided information to EPA that corrective actions were completed at the Facilities listed in Appendix A to address some of the compliance issues observed during the flyovers.”
💡 ConocoPhillips only fixed the problems after getting caught, proving they were capable of compliance all along.
QUOTE 11
Statute of limitations tolling
delay_tactics
“Respondent agrees that the time period from the Effective Date of this CAFO until all the conditions specified in Paragraphs 37 through 39 of this CAFO are completed shall not be included in computing the running of any statute of limitations potentially applicable to any action brought by Complainant on any claims set forth in Section E of this CAFO.”
💡 The settlement extends EPA’s enforcement window while ConocoPhillips completes required monitoring.
QUOTE 12
Protecting public health
health
“The Act is designed to protect and enhance the quality of the Nation’s air resources so as to promote the public health and welfare and the productive capacity of its population.”
💡 ConocoPhillips violated laws specifically designed to protect people from the exact type of pollution the company released.
QUOTE 13
EPA enforcement authority
regulatory
“EPA is authorized by Section 113 of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7413, to take action to ensure that air pollution sources comply with all federally applicable air pollution control requirements.”
💡 EPA has clear legal authority to pursue these violations, yet enforcement took nearly a year after detection.
QUOTE 14
Required pilot flame monitoring
allegations
“Pilot flame monitoring must meet the specifications in 40 C.F.R. § 60.18.”
💡 Federal regulations require specific monitoring to ensure flares stay lit, but ConocoPhillips failed to meet these standards.
QUOTE 15
Ongoing monitoring required
accountability
“Within ninety days of the Effective Date of this CAFO, Respondent shall install and operate monitoring equipment in accordance with Sections II-III of Appendix C for a period of one year from the Effective Date of this CAFO.”
💡 The settlement requires enhanced monitoring that should have been standard practice all along.
Frequently Asked Questions
What exactly did ConocoPhillips do wrong?
EPA caught ConocoPhillips operating flares without lit pilot lights, leaving tank hatches open or improperly sealed, and failing to maintain vapor recovery systems at eight Texas oil and gas facilities. These failures allowed toxic volatile organic compounds to vent directly into the air instead of being controlled or burned, violating Clean Air Act requirements and Texas air quality rules.
How did EPA discover these violations?
EPA contracted helicopter flyovers of the Permian Basin in August and September 2020 using specialized infrared cameras that can detect invisible hydrocarbon emissions. Without this expensive detection technology, the violations would have remained hidden from standard ground inspections.
What health risks do these emissions pose?
Volatile organic compounds released from oil and gas facilities contribute to ground-level ozone formation and can cause respiratory problems, headaches, eye irritation, and other health effects. Long-term exposure increases risks of chronic respiratory illnesses and cardiovascular problems, especially for children, elderly residents, and those with pre-existing conditions.
Why did ConocoPhillips let this happen?
Maintaining continuously burning pilot lights, properly sealing tank hatches, and keeping vapor recovery systems working requires ongoing investment in equipment, maintenance, and monitoring. The settlement shows these measures were technically feasible, suggesting the company chose to avoid these costs until forced to comply after getting caught.
Is a $490,000 penalty enough to change corporate behavior?
For a multibillion-dollar energy corporation, a $490,000 penalty represents a tiny fraction of revenue and may simply be absorbed as a cost of doing business. The settlement includes no admission of wrongdoing and resolves only the specific facilities and timeframes alleged, limiting accountability.
Why did it take so long for EPA to act?
EPA conducted the helicopter inspections in August-September 2020 but did not issue the formal Notice of Violation until July 2021, nearly a year later. The parties then negotiated for more than three years before finalizing the consent agreement in August 2024. This timeline reveals how resource-intensive environmental enforcement is even with clear video evidence.
Will nearby communities receive any compensation?
No. The settlement includes no direct compensation, health monitoring, or environmental remediation for community members who breathed elevated pollution levels during the violation period. All penalty money goes to the federal treasury rather than supporting affected residents.
What happens next at these facilities?
ConocoPhillips must conduct monthly optical gas imaging surveys, install continuous tank pressure monitors and flare monitors, complete comprehensive facility reviews and engineering assessments, and submit detailed reports to EPA. However, these enhanced requirements last only twelve months before the facilities revert to standard oversight.
Does this settlement prevent future violations?
The settlement resolves only the eight facilities and specific timeframes alleged in the complaint. ConocoPhillips can continue operating other facilities under the same practices that led to these violations. The company neither admitted nor denied wrongdoing and faces no personal consequences for executives or site managers who made the decisions.
What can concerned residents do?
Community members near oil and gas facilities can request public records about air quality monitoring and enforcement actions, attend state environmental agency meetings to advocate for stronger oversight, support organizations pushing for real-time public emissions data, and contact elected representatives to demand adequate funding for environmental enforcement agencies. Collective action and sustained pressure are essential to hold corporations accountable when regulatory resources are limited.
README.txt:
https://www.epa.gov/enforcement/consent-decree-conocophillips-global-refinery
https://www.epa.gov/enforcement/conocophillips-global-refinery-settlement
💡 Explore Corporate Misconduct by Category
Corporations harm people every day — from wage theft to pollution. Learn more by exploring key areas of injustice.
- 💀 Product Safety Violations — When companies risk lives for profit.
- 🌿 Environmental Violations — Pollution, ecological collapse, and unchecked greed.
- 💼 Labor Exploitation — Wage theft, worker abuse, and unsafe conditions.
- 🛡️ Data Breaches & Privacy Abuses — Misuse and mishandling of personal information.
- 💵 Financial Fraud & Corruption — Lies, scams, and executive impunity.
