With the high oil prices, and the fact that Venezuela does have other 'non-western' companies to give the infraestructure of Exxon to, do you think that company will start 2007 with one of it's arms cut off?
My internet was not shut down, the internet has shut me down
Cfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 2, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 1430 times:
This is quite possible, and it has happened before in other OPEC countries. There is of course an element of greed here as well. Since Chavez took over the government, oil revenues to him have increased by several hundred percent, and still he wants more. Either that means that his social programs have become tremendously expensive, or that a lot of that money is being siphoned off into bank accounts in Switzerland and the Jersey Islands.
Bushpilot From South Africa, joined Jul 2007, 0 posts, RR: 1 Reply 6, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 1387 times:
Venezuela is better off without Exxon. In terms of corporations they are the scum of the earth. Despite making 36billion usd in 2005 alone they have yet to pay a dime out in 5billion usd class action lawsuit filed 16 years ago by the fisherman of Alaska after the Exxon Valdez disaster.
If there ever were an oil spill you can count on exxon to do the littlest amount to clean it up. I wouldnt imagine Ven. has the enviromental laws AK does and could get away with far more. Do yourselves a favor and boot them out early.
Mrmeangenes From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 566 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 1380 times:
Bushpilot,you left out a few things, didn't you ?
Exxon argues it should have to pay no more than $25 million in punitive damages.
The corporation, which reported third-quarter earnings of $10 billion, says it has spent more than $3 billion to settle federal and state lawsuits and to clean the Prince William Sound area.
In two previous appeals, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ordered U.S. District Judge H. Russel Holland of Anchorage to reduce the judgment against Exxon, saying it was unconstitutionally excessive.
Holland begrudgingly complied in 2002, reducing it to $4 billion. Irving, Texas-based Exxon appealed, and Holland was ordered to revisit the decision again. He called Exxon's actions "reprehensible," and set the figure at $4.5 billion plus interest.
What I'm asking-without commenting on the rights or wrongs of the case, is whether you forgot the $3 billion already paid ?
Bushpilot From South Africa, joined Jul 2007, 0 posts, RR: 1 Reply 8, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 1371 times:
Quoting Mrmeangenes (Reply 7): What I'm asking-without commenting on the rights or wrongs of the case, is whether you forgot the $3 billion already paid ?
I didnt trust me, $2b was paid for the cleanup itself(which the balked at paying for at first) The rest of the 1b paid fines and other things of that sort to state, fed, and local governments. Not a nickel has been paid to any fisherman for thier lost wages.
Quoting Mrmeangenes (Reply 7): He called Exxon's actions "reprehensible," and set the figure at $4.5 billion plus interest.
Ok well 4.5b plus interest is close enough to 5billion for me, in the meantime close to 10% of the fisherman involved in the suit have died, its been 17 fricking years pay up!
Quoting Mrmeangenes (Reply 7): Exxon argues it should have to pay no more than $25 million in punitive damages.
Why? They have destroyed fisheries that were thriving in the pre-spill days. It effected the whole fishing industry even that areas not effected by the spill. I live over 1000 coastal miles away from the PWS spill area. The price of red salmon(my area's main species) went from $2-2.25 a pound in 1988 to 50cents! in 1990. This was all due to backlash from the spill and the thought the fish was tainted. Irrepairable damage was done they need to pay up. They ruined the livelihoods of thousands in this state. $4.5b is the amount figured lost for fisherman in the years surrounding the spill and therefore fair in my book and pretty much anyone elses book if your not an exxon share holder.
Mrmeangenes From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 566 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 1356 times:
I'm a LONG way from being an Exxon shareholder !
What struck me was the the 9th Ct of Appeals -considered by many to be the most "liberal", least "business-friendly" court in the nation-sent the case back twice for re-calculation of damages, saying the amount levied was unconstitutional.