"When a guy who is making $70,000 a year wants to increase his income to $100,000 per year, that is NOT greed. The reason is simple. That extra $30,000 per year has a noticible effect upon his standard of living, getting his family things that are useful, such as college funds, cars, etc.

Now, when a guy who is making $70,000,000 a year wants to increase his income to $100,000,000 per year, that IS greed."

That's untrue, simply because a 1000 year ago, no one had a million dollars. And 1000 years ago there was greed.

Neither the 30k increase nor 30 million increase indicates greed. What more indicative in this case in the other Sin- envy. Your cousin has 10 cows, and you only have 1 cow. The idea that it's unfair and/or that you resent your cousin having 10 cow and the "fact" that your life would better with one [or 5] of his cows is envy. You are getting along with just 1 cow, so therefore, he must not need 10 cows.

You could call him greedy, but that doesn't mean he is, he may have been more fortuate, he may worked harder, he might have even done things that you regard as morally questionable- who knows, but what is simple to see is your envy of his large number of cows.
Or if you have 4 cows, and your cousin has 4 cows and gets one more you might consider that "ok"- it's less of difference between you therefore less to resent as "unfair"- you also may hope to get another cow soon.

But in any case I don't see greed as much as a possibllity [and only a possiblity] of playing chicken in politics or a form of "worker's strike". It seems that the oil company is facing legal troubles to do with oil spill. Perhaps they are facing a court order that threaten to shut them down or threatens their production capability. So they are in a sense a "caving" to this pressure, in order to get politicans attention.

Such as, "Sorry, we can't continue oil production, because of such and such is preventing us; if you would "do something" to stop this, will could then get back in operation. "Meanwhile, I'm sorry you will need to import more oil, perhaps now or in the future you should do something to help us, instead hindering us from delivering a vital resource".

In other words perhaps you could it blackmail, just like unions always blackmail companies: we aren't going to show up for work and that we costs you a lot of money, if you pay the workers more money, we won't go on strike.

But, probably more likely is they would rather stop all production, throughly check out their pipeline system, go even overboard making absolutely certain another oil spill doesn't occur [because that would be significant PR hit in future- one small oil spill was bad enough as it is. And also because it's an excercise in showing what a safe and through company they are {future contract possiblities}]. And they can write off the loss with offset in current profits from other sectors in there business.
So, a bit fear [better to be safe, than sorry], might be the reason in regard to the CEO, rather than Greed.