Quote:

High court may get Exxon Valdez case
Years of legal wrangling by the energy giant have frustrated Alaskans affected by the biggest oil spill in the nation's history.
By Christian Science Monitor
Eighteen years after captain Joseph Hazelwood radioed that the oil tanker Exxon Valdez had "fetched up hard aground" on Alaska's Bligh Reef, the battle over environmental damage and financial liability may be nearing conclusion after years of legal wrangling.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recently upheld a $2.5 billion punitive-damages judgment against ExxonMobil (XOM, news, msgs), which means the U.S. Supreme Court is likely to settle the case.

Not all animal species have fully recovered from what was the largest oil spill in U.S. history, and more than 30,000 people affected by the spill are still waiting for what they call adequate compensation.

About 11 million gallons of crude were dumped into Prince William Sound that day in March 1989. Winds, tides and currents spread much of it over 10,000 square miles and 1,200 miles of rocky beach. Hundreds of thousands of seabirds, fish and other animals were killed. Tens of thousands of fishermen, cannery workers, native Alaskans and others were affected.

Though it's been more than 18 years since the spill, a federal study this year concluded that oil has persisted below the surface of exposed shores and that the remaining oil is declining by only about 4% a year. Particularly persistent is the thick, emulsified goo known as "oil mousse."

"Our results indicate that the remaining subsurface oil may persist for decades with little change," researchers from the National Marine Fisheries Service and other agencies concluded in a report published in February. "Such persistence can pose a contact hazard to inter-tidally foraging sea otters, sea ducks and shorebirds, create a chronic source of low-level contamination, discourage subsistence in a region where use is heavy and degrade the wilderness character of protected lands."

'Healthy, robust and thriving'
Last year, the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council, which oversees ecosystem recovery in Prince William Sound, painted a mixed picture.

Some species, including bald eagles, harbor seals and river otters, have recovered to pre-spill levels. But others -- killer whales, sea otters, mussels and clams among them -- have not fully recovered. Pacific herring, which are commercially valuable as well as being a source of food to marine mammals, birds, invertebrates and other fish, appear not to be recovering, and at one point the fishery had collapsed with only 25% of the expected adults returning to spawn, according to the trustee council.

ExxonMobil disputes claims by biologists, fishermen and others that the damaging effects continue, including drop-offs in herring and some salmon runs. On its Web site, ExxonMobil asserts that "hundreds of peer-reviewed scientific studies conducted by researchers from major independent scientific laboratories and academic institutions" have proved that "the environment in Prince William Sound is healthy, robust and thriving."

The Texas oil giant points out that it already has spent about $3 billion on environmental cleanup, government settlements, fines and compensation.

But on May 23, the 9th Circuit Court upheld the $2.5 billion punitive-damages judgment against ExxonMobil, which originally had been set at $5 billion by a federal jury in 1994.

Among the plaintiffs in the case are about 33,000 fishermen, cannery workers, business owners, native Alaskans and others.

In its ruling last month -- its third in the case since 1994 -- the appeals court declared, "It is time for this protracted litigation to end." Plaintiffs agree, noting that at least 6,000 of those who originally claimed to have been harmed by the massive oil spill have since died.

Putting up a 'ridicule pole'
Earlier this year, ExxonMobil reported the largest-ever annual profit by a U.S. company: $39.5 billion. At their recent annual meeting in Dallas, company executives faced a vocal minority of shareholders demanding that ExxonMobil set goals for reducing greenhouse gases and committing to invest more in renewable-energy sources.

So far, ExxonMobil has declined to join BP PLC (BP, news, msgs), ConocoPhillips (COP, news, msgs) and Shell (RDS.A, news, msgs) as part of the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, a coalition of corporations and environmental groups pushing for binding legal limits on greenhouse gases.

After the 1989 spill, the Exxon Valdez was banished from Prince William Sound, renamed the SeaRiver Mediterranean and sent to other parts of the world. In 1990, Congress passed a law banning single-hulled tankers like the Valdez from domestic waters by 2015.

Meanwhile, in Cordova, Alaska -- the fishing village most devastated by the oil spill -- villagers recently erected a "ridicule pole." It's a traditional native yellow cedar totem pole mocking a company official's promise shortly after the Exxon Valdez ran aground: "We will do whatever it takes to keep you whole."
This article was reported and written by Brad Knickerbocker for The Christian Science Monitor.

Gee you'd think they'd just pay the $2.5 billion considering they made nearly 40 billion last year. That's why I try not to spend money on any Exxonmobil product.

I hate hearing about this. ExxonMobil is not even responsible for this spill. Thats why they are slow to pay.

ExxonMobil contracted out the transportation of their oil. The Valdez, tho carring the Exxon name, was not owned by Exxon. It was owned by a 3rd party company.

So my thoughts, If you own a truck company and transport a product, any product, (tv's, cars, radios, oil) and you crash, sink or whatever your vehichle. Whos fault is it, the person who owns the transportation company, or the person who owns the product??

So if ExxonMobil is to blame for this, would Sony be to blame if a 3rd party company ship sank transporting Sony TV's?

They accepted blame for the incident, they had to insure the shipment against operating mishaps...

They're getting hit with a punitive lawsuit for their pollutive product contaminating an area of sensitive area... on top of that I'm betting Exxon didn't outlay a dime for the cleanup out of pocket.

It sucks that the spill happened, but the person that was charged with responsibility for the incident was under contract to Exxon. Exxon was liable, they're responsible, they pay.


BTW, your reasoning is faulty.




Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.

Like GAM said, doesn't matter who owned the ship, it's who is responsible for the product. That's a fact of life.

Exxon has likely spent more money trying to avoid paying then the actual pay out would be. Bunch of jerks.

As a shipper it is your responsibility to get your product from A to B safely. If you contract out the job to someone else you are still responsible and really should be confident the company you hire does not employ drunks who drive oil tankers into rocks.

PAX




PS: This is what part of the alphabet would look like if Q and R were eliminated
- Mitch Hedberg (RIP)

the best part is that ExxonMobil was able to get a tax deduction for the loss of product, so your tax dollars (at leas in the US) helped pay for it.


-Chris

the rich dont stay rich by giving money away, they hold as much of it as possible, a buck is still a buck

neongreencavi wrote:the rich dont stay rich by giving money away, they hold as much of it as possible, a buck is still a buck

That's what Punitive Damages are for.




Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.

Quote:

Court hears Exxon Valdez case

By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer
2 hours, 21 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court is considering whether to prevent victims of the Exxon Valdez disaster from collecting a $2.5 billion judgment, nearly 19 years after the tanker dumped 11 million gallons of oil into Alaska waters.

In the case being argued Wednesday, Exxon Mobil Corp. wants the court to erase the award of punitive damages to nearly 33,000 commercial fishermen, Native Alaskans, landowners, businesses and local governments.

The 987-foot tanker, commanded by its captain, Joseph Hazelwood, missed a turn and ran aground on a reef in Prince William Sound, causing the worst oil spill in U.S. history.

Two brothers from Cordova, Alaska, were in line in front of the Supreme Court on Wednesday morning, waiting to watch the arguments inside.

Commercial fisherman Steve Copeland, who was 41 at the time of the spill, said he cannot afford to retire because his business has never recovered from the steep decline it suffered due to the disaster.

His brother, Tom, said that Exxon "needs to get told they need to be a better corporate citizen."

A jury initially awarded $287 million to compensate for economic losses and $5 billion in punitive damages. A federal appeals court cut the punitive damages in half. The compensatory damages have been paid.

Now Exxon says it should not face any punitive damages because the company already has paid $3.4 billion in fines, penalties, cleanup costs, claims and other expenses.

It argues that long-standing maritime law and the 1970s-era Clean Water Act should bar any punitive damages, which are intended both to punish behavior and deter a repeat.

The company says it should not be held accountable for Hazelwood's reckless conduct. He left the bridge of the ship before the turn and had been drinking shortly before it left port, both in violation of Coast Guard rules and company policy.

The plaintiffs say the judgment, representing three weeks of Exxon's 2006 profit, is rational and proportionate. It takes account of Exxon's decision to allow Hazelwood to command the ship, despite knowing he had an ongoing drinking problem, the plaintiffs contend.

Justice Samuel Alito, who owns Exxon stock, is not taking part in the case. A 4-4 split would leave the damages award in place.

Knowing how many Washington DC people they got in their back pocket they'll probably win.

What a suprise they only have to pay 500 million now.

Quote:

Supreme Court cuts punitive damages to 500,000,000 in Exxon Valdez case
The Supreme Court on Wednesday also cut the $2.5 billion punitive damages award in the 1989 Exxon Valdez disaster to $500 million.

The court ruled that victims of the worst oil spill in U.S. history may collect punitive damages from Exxon Mobil Corp., but not as much as a federal appeals court determined.

Justice David Souter wrote for the court that punitive damages may not exceed what the company already paid to compensate victims for economic losses, about $500 million compensation.

Exxon asked the high court to reject the punitive damages judgment, saying it already has spent $3.4 billion in response to the accident that fouled 1,200 miles of Alaska coastline.

A jury decided Exxon should pay $5 billion in punitive damages. A federal appeals court cut that verdict in half.

What do you expect when oil lobbyists help win political campaigns.

Who cares?

when I went up there in 98, ya really couldn't tell anything happened.........


why didn't we sue Iraq for setting Oil wells on fire?, LOL

OR Kuwait for ALLOWING it to happen.


Chris






"An appeal to arms and the God of hosts is all that is left us. But we shall not fight our battle alone. There is a just God that presides over the destinies of nations. The battle sir, is not of the strong alone. Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death."

Speech at the Second Virginia Convention at St. John's Church in Richmond, Virginia (23 March 1775) Patrick Henry

another oil spill could actually be the key to cheap gas again. Everyone would sell their stock for fear of a huge settlement.