ExxonMobil general counsel Jack Balagia corrected the record yesterday about a much-criticized $225 million settlement between New Jersey and ExxonMobil about natural resource damage around historic sites that had been home to two Standard Oil refineries.

He outlined the legally and scientifically groundless methodology behind the state’s claim for $8.9 billion. Essentially, the claim is based on assumed – not actual – damages, going back 100 years into the past and another 100 years into the future on private land that was lawfully developed with the knowledge and encouragement of the state.

That methodology has never been accepted as legitimate by any court. In fact it’s been unsuccessful in two previous cases brought by New Jersey against other industrial enterprises.

It should also be very troubling for anyone in New Jersey who owns private property. If they can do it to us, they can do it to you.

Today, I’d like to talk about what the case is not about – which is also the subject of much confusion among New Jersey legislators, media, and other commentators.

Specifically, it’s not about cleaning up the legacy refining sites.

Here’s why. In 1991 we entered into two administrative consent orders with the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection to remediate contamination at both refineries arising from our historic, lawful operations.

In the quarter century since that time, we have spent more than $260 million on remediation, and we will continue with the cleanup until the job is completed.

ExxonMobil continues to work with New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection on the remedial program for these sites. The DEP or its designees review and approve our work plans for the cleanup.

Today the Bayway and Bayonne sites are active industrial facilities owned and operated by third parties. On any given day, ExxonMobil can have up to 10 companies and 90 personnel on site performing remediation and demolition work.

Our goal is to remediate the sites in compliance with New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection regulations and direction as safely as possible. As these are complex operating facilities, remediation is expected to continue for a number of years.

Despite the erroneous reporting and misinformation, the underlying case here is not about cleanup, but instead was an effort by the state to collect damages for alleged lost use of properties that the public never had the ability to use.

As I said, we’re committed to the cleanup and will stay with the job until it’s completed.