Energy company wants audio of foul-mouthed executive removed from the web

Last week, we learned that Clayton Woitas, the CEO of Canadian energy company Encana, uttered an angry expletive after an analyst asked him an impertinent question. "The answer would be no," Woitas said. "Fucking asshole."

This week, we learn that lawyers for the firm "want the clip off the Internet". They've issued a takedown demand to the audio hosting service used by the Globe and Mail reporter who wrote the story.

Adorable. You know what the answer is?

The answer would be no, fucking asshole [Chirbit]



    1. Exactly. I would love to see a graph of the number of times this has been posted and listened to on the web, and see the spike after the lawyer asked for it’s removal.

      There are already 1000 new listens alone from Rob’s posting of it (and that number keeps going up each time I refresh the page).

  1. Reminds me of Enron, where somewhat later into its life when the house of cards was starting to collapse, an analyst on a call asked the Enron executive point blank how they were able to justify their numbers.  He spouted a bit of standard bullshit and then added “asshole”, to the shock of just about everybody on the high profile conference call. 

    Even more amusing was Enron’s motto, which was “Ask Why”.  After the conference call, some people made an alternate version of the motto:  “Ask Why, asshole”.

  2. This must be annoying for them. All the hubbub because of some swears. Hopefully the ruckus will die down so they can get back to raping the planet without all this PR fallout.

  3. We’re willing to take this all the way to the President of the Internet if necessarily. Or Supreme Court. International Tribunal. Elders. Whatever, look we’re serious about this.

  4. Bwaahahahahahahah, this is too perfect.

    ‘The answer would be no, fucking asshole’ : D

    Ever notice how much correlation there is between arseholery and stupidity?

    Dumbarses never heard of the Streisand effect : D

  5.  There are two possibilities here.

    One: the company’s lawyers are very dim.

    Second:  the company’s lawyers lack client control.

    Been there, done that.

    “Mr. Client, we could do that for you – but the probable result is that it will . . .”

    “JUST DO IT!”

    “Yes, of course, but really, if we send this letter, it will just make . . . ”


    “Right away, sir.  {sotto voce} Fuckin’ asshole.”

  6. Clayton Woitas is the new guy. Not new to the Alberta oil patch and is acting as interim CEO after the other guy retired last month.

    Woitas is on record as saying he prefers private companies to public ones. 

    Private gain and public spills.

    “Undo. Delete! Uhhh, Sorry about that spill. Didn’t mean to. It was an accident. Won’t do it again. Let’s keep with the crude, huh? Same old-same old, ok? No harm done?”

    ‘Fucking assholes’ is right. What an archaic industry.

  7. If this is from the reporter’s recording, wouldn’t that make the copyright in the recording belong to the Globe, thus making the takedown notice perjury? Perhaps the Globe could threaten them with legal action, and seek damages. Could be an opportunity to set a useful precedent.

Comments are closed.