bushpilot
Posts: 1674
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 4:37 am

Exxon Valdez Oil Spill 17 Years Ago Today.

Sat Mar 25, 2006 10:29 am

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exxon_Valdez_oil_spill
For those unfamiliar with the incident.

17 years ago and by most accounts the area has returned to its previous splender of natural beauty and abundant wildlife after having at least 11million gallons of crude oil spilled into those waters. Anyone remember the incident? Obviously a huge news story in AK at the time and there is always a story about the spill in the news on the anniversary.
More importantly 17 years later and Exxon is still fighting tooth and nail to not pay out on the 5billion in punitive damages awarded at the time. Despite having a $36million profits in 2005.

[Edited 2006-03-25 02:32:52]
 
Klaus
Posts: 20578
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

RE: Exxon Valdez Oil Spill 17 Years Ago Today.

Sun Mar 26, 2006 3:18 am

Quoting Bushpilot (Thread starter):
More importantly 17 years later and Exxon is still fighting tooth and nail to not pay out on the 5billion in punitive damages awarded at the time. Despite having a $36million profits in 2005.

I started boycotting them when it became apparent how badly they were handling the situation and unfortunately they never gave me opportunity to reverse my decision.

17 years already? Well...
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: Exxon Valdez Oil Spill 17 Years Ago Today.

Sun Mar 26, 2006 3:44 am

Over 3000 plantiffs have died since Exxon lost the original lawsuit over the spill.

They are still appealing and as a corperation are the scum of the earth.

I was actually a bit surprised to see Frank postering to seek the additional 100 million the state is entiled to in damages for the lack of a herring fishery in in the past 11 or the 17 years since the spill. Exxon is claiming that the herring fishery colapsed due to overfishing. A hollow arguement when you consider how closely the state monitors its fisheries (having won several recognitions for their efforts) and the fact it was an annual fishery prior to that.

Exxon is definately on a lot of peoles shit list up here.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 
AirCop
Posts: 5553
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2005 2:39 am

RE: Exxon Valdez Oil Spill 17 Years Ago Today.

Sun Mar 26, 2006 8:46 am

Unfortunately these huge corporations believe they are above the law and in today's world they set the table for government policy. As long as they can spent mega bucks on attorneys they will do there best to keep it tied up in court.
Look at NAFTA, in the find print, there are provisions for the corporations to sue governments for any actions that hurts their revenue flow. I believe California is getting sued over gasoline right now.
 
bushpilot
Posts: 1674
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 4:37 am

RE: Exxon Valdez Oil Spill 17 Years Ago Today.

Sun Mar 26, 2006 9:19 am

Quoting Klaus (Reply 1):
17 years already?

Yeah I said the same thing when the topic came up at work.

Quoting L-188 (Reply 2):
They are still appealing and as a corperation are the scum of the earth.

Yeah, Id love to have some popcorn, sit back and watch the scene if an Exxon lawyer or executive showed up at a bar in Kodiak.

Quoting L-188 (Reply 2):
I was actually a bit surprised to see Frank postering to seek the additional 100 million the state is entiled to in damages for the lack of a herring fishery in in the past 11 or the 17 years since the spill. Exxon is claiming that the herring fishery colapsed due to overfishing.

I was glad to see him do it, not surprised though, he hasnt announced if he is going to run, it would be another nail in his political coffin if he didnt go after that money. The state of that herring fishery is tragic, all of the commercial fisheries in the state are watched closely with management and not extinction being the priority.


Quoting AirCop (Reply 3):
Unfortunately these huge corporations believe they are above the law

Well they dont believe it, because this is a perfect case study in how they are above the law. If you or I got sued and lost, there is no way we could appeal for 17 years, and at the rate its going, this appeal is going to happen for another 5. In the meantime %10 of the plaintiffs have died as L-188 said, Exxon can talk all day long about how the punitive damages should be lowered because Exxon payed for the cleanup. Well when you spill it, you clean it up. I hope a federal judge will keep tacking on interest to the payments these people will probably never see.
 
AirCop
Posts: 5553
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2005 2:39 am

RE: Exxon Valdez Oil Spill 17 Years Ago Today.

Sun Mar 26, 2006 9:26 am

Quoting Bushpilot (Reply 4):
Well they dont believe it, because this is a perfect case study in how they are above the law. If you or I got sued and lost, there is no way we could appeal for 17 years, and at the rate its going, this appeal is going to happen for another 5. In the meantime %10 of the plaintiffs have died as L-188 said, Exxon can talk all day long about how the punitive damages should be lowered because Exxon payed for the cleanup. Well when you spill it, you clean it up. I hope a federal judge will keep tacking on interest to the payments these people will probably never see.

Most Public Relations experts plan would be just to get it over it, clean it up, pay the bills,etc avoid the negative press..not Exxon.
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: Exxon Valdez Oil Spill 17 Years Ago Today.

Sun Mar 26, 2006 9:31 am

Quoting Bushpilot (Reply 4):
I was glad to see him do it, not surprised though, he hasnt announced if he is going to run, it would be another nail in his political coffin if he didnt go after that money.

Actually I was half expecting him to trade not going after that money for a cushy post Governorship job with the company.

Quoting AirCop (Reply 5):
Most Public Relations experts plan would be just to get it over it, clean it up, pay the bills,etc avoid the negative press..not Exxon.

You have to admit that 5 Billion is hard to walk away from and then justify to your shareholders
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 
bushpilot
Posts: 1674
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 4:37 am

RE: Exxon Valdez Oil Spill 17 Years Ago Today.

Sun Mar 26, 2006 9:40 am

Quoting L-188 (Reply 6):
You have to admit that 5 Billion is hard to walk away from and then justify to your shareholders

As an Alaskan indirectly inpacted by the spill, I dont give a shit about thier shareholders because they have repeatedly shown they dont care about Alaskans and fisherman especially. The fisherman were here first, fishermen dont have one negative impact on the oil industry. The oil industry and specifically exxon destroyed fisheries, the livlihoods of thousands, and communities. I wouldnt piss on an Exxon executive if thier hair was on fire.
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: Exxon Valdez Oil Spill 17 Years Ago Today.

Sun Mar 26, 2006 9:45 am

Quoting Bushpilot (Reply 4):
Yeah, Id love to have some popcorn, sit back and watch the scene if an Exxon lawyer or executive showed up at a bar in Kodiak.

Screw Kodiak.......land them in Cordova.

Quoting Bushpilot (Reply 7):
As an Alaskan indirectly inpacted by the spill, I dont give a shit about thier shareholders because they have repeatedly shown they dont care about Alaskans and fisherman especially.

I know that and that is my feelings about it too.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 
bushpilot
Posts: 1674
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 4:37 am

RE: Exxon Valdez Oil Spill 17 Years Ago Today.

Sun Mar 26, 2006 9:52 am

Quoting L-188 (Reply 8):
Screw Kodiak.......land them in Cordova.

Hell let them run the gauntlet through there yakutat, cordova, seward(where they belong in spring creek correctional facility) valdez, kodiak all the way down to dutch. But the folks in Kodiak are pretty stirred up these days over the ground fish rationalization going on. the governor debate was held in kodiak and focused on the fishing industry, tons of questions about rationalization and all the candidates were more or less against it, if they would have been pro-rationalization they might not have made it out of the venue.
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: Exxon Valdez Oil Spill 17 Years Ago Today.

Sun Mar 26, 2006 11:10 am

Quoting Bushpilot (Thread starter):
More importantly 17 years later and Exxon is still fighting tooth and nail to not pay out on the 5billion in punitive damages awarded at the time. Despite having a $36million profits in 2005

36 million profits in 2005? And you think it is odd they are fighting a punitive award of 5 billion? How many years of 36 billion profit would it take to reach the 5 billion award?

Quoting L-188 (Reply 8):
Quoting Bushpilot (Reply 4):
Yeah, Id love to have some popcorn, sit back and watch the scene if an Exxon lawyer or executive showed up at a bar in Kodiak.

Screw Kodiak.......land them in Cordova

Exxon spent $2.2 billion to clean up the spill. They also paid more than $300 million in compensation to to 11,000 people and businesses for losses incurred on account of the spill. Didn't an Anchorage jury in 1994 reject a claim for additional compensatory damages? And in July 2002, didn't another Anchorage jury agree with Exxon that it had fully reimbursed six municipal governments for oil spill response labor and expenses?

And you want another 5 billion? Why? To punish an entire company because ONE employee screwed up?

I lived in Kodiak from 1989 to 1991. During that period, Exxon was spending money in Kodiak like a drunken sailor on liberty. There was so much money in Kodiak than the local McDonald's had a sign at the counter - "Please, no $100.00 bills."

For the record, I don't work for Exxon, nor do I own stock in the company. And I consider Alaska to be God's country. Living there was the best part of my military career. But as tragic as the spill was, it doesn't justify running a company out of business.
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
bushpilot
Posts: 1674
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 4:37 am

RE: Exxon Valdez Oil Spill 17 Years Ago Today.

Sun Mar 26, 2006 11:45 am

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 10):
And you want another 5 billion? Why? To punish an entire company because ONE employee screwed up?

This wouldnt bankrupt the company, it has made billions and billions since this happened. A fair jury awarded that amount for punitive damages. Many people mostly fishermen were impacted greatly by this. Directly and indirectly, by killing fisheries, but also from the negative news that came afterwards about Alaskan fish. Fish caught out of Dutch Harbor are 1000 miles away from the spill zone therefor perfectly safe, but on the news was the biggest oil spill in America and fish and birds are dying, so when the price of fish goes down it hurts everyone, boat owners, captains, deck hands, cannery workers, processors, which then in turn hurts that local economy.
At this rate though, I dont think anyone is going to see that money for a long time regardless, probably another %10 of the plaintiffs will die before there is a payout. 15 years ago, my feeling was to punish them for the accident, now I am more mad about them not paying it out. In the end it will be the lawyers who come out of this pretty and nobody else.

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 10):
Exxon spent $2.2 billion to clean up the spill.

Is this a suggestion that they shouldnt have had to clean it up? Or that because they payed to clean it up, that should be the end of it? Either way or however, the area is still not fully recovered enviromentally, marine bird numbers have yet to reach the population they had before the spill, a once successful and prominent herring fishery has become a joke and even been cancelled 11 of the last 17 years this year included, all due to the spill.
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: Exxon Valdez Oil Spill 17 Years Ago Today.

Sun Mar 26, 2006 12:06 pm

Quoting Bushpilot (Reply 11):
This wouldnt bankrupt the company, it has made billions and billions since this happened. A fair jury awarded that amount for punitive damages.

If Exxon had 36 million profit in 2005, how many years of that kind of profit would it take to pay the 5 billion?

I believe the Ninth Circuit - the most liberal circuit in the land - has twice concluded that the punitive damage award wasn't reasonable.

Quoting Bushpilot (Reply 11):
Fish caught out of Dutch Harbor are 1000 miles away from the spill zone therefor perfectly safe, but on the news was the biggest oil spill in America and fish and birds are dying, so when the price of fish goes down it hurts everyone, boat owners, captains, deck hands, cannery workers, processors, which then in turn hurts that local economy.

And Exxon paid damages for those losses that were reasonably established. And juries in Anchorage rejected attempts to get Exxon to pay more, because the plaintiffs couldn't prove that the increased losses were actually incurred.

Quoting Bushpilot (Reply 11):
Is this a suggestion that they shouldnt have had to clean it up? Or that because they payed to clean it up, that should be the end of it?

Not at all. Exxon was responsible for cleaning up the effects of the spill. Which cost them over 2 billion - including those direct losses that were established to have been incurred. The idea that they should pay twice that amount as "punishment" is what I object to.

[Edited 2006-03-26 04:07:20]

[Edited 2006-03-26 04:07:51]
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
satx
Posts: 2771
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2005 7:26 am

RE: Exxon Valdez Oil Spill 17 Years Ago Today.

Sun Mar 26, 2006 1:47 pm

Whoops! Looks like I double-posted.

[Edited 2006-03-26 05:59:19]
Open Season on Consumer Protections is Just Around the Corner...
 
satx
Posts: 2771
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2005 7:26 am

RE: Exxon Valdez Oil Spill 17 Years Ago Today.

Sun Mar 26, 2006 1:58 pm

Quoting L-188 (Reply 2):

They are still appealing and as a corperation are the scum of the earth.

 checkmark  100%  thumbsup 

Quoting L-188 (Reply 2):

Exxon is definately on a lot of peoles shit list up here.

They've never been more popular down here in Texas. Most people I know go to Exxon for everything from fuel to snacks to lotto tickets. Then again, that may say more about Texans than Exxon.

Quoting AirCop (Reply 3):
Look at NAFTA, in the find print, there are provisions for the corporations to sue governments for any actions that hurts their revenue flow. I believe California is getting sued over gasoline right now.

You are correct. NAFTA is something akin to the anti-christ in the eyes of those who care about local jobs, the environment, and personal protections. Among the most damaging aspects of NAFTA is Chapter 11, which is not related to bankruptcy but instead allows foreign corporations to essentially ignore our government's future environmental protections and sue our government whenever these new protections harm their cash flow. What kind of world do we live in when corporations can decide what environmental regulations they want to follow and can sue us when they don't like them? This may be a conservative's dream, but it's a nightmare for the few Americans who actually care about the environment.

http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/tradingdemocracy.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methyl_tert-butyl_ether#Legislation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Free_Trade_Agreement

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 10):

36 million profits in 2005? And you think it is odd they are fighting a punitive award of 5 billion? How many years of 36 billion profit would it take to reach the 5 billion award?

Since Exxon-Mobile posted a profit of $25 billion in 2004 and $36.13 billion and has eagerly spent millions upon millions funding folks who are willing to use their official titles to openly cast doubt on the causes and effects of global warming, it would seem that if anyone can afford to pay this bill certainly Exxon can.

I wonder what it's like to try and cast one of America's most successful mega-conglomerates as some sort of victim. Do you ever have trouble sleeping at night? As someone who generally strives to support the underdog, I'm rather sickened by folks who always seem to throw their sympathy behind the sure-winner.

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/22/1338256
Open Season on Consumer Protections is Just Around the Corner...
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: Exxon Valdez Oil Spill 17 Years Ago Today.

Sun Mar 26, 2006 2:10 pm

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 12):
If Exxon had 36 million profit in 2005, how many years of that kind of profit would it take to pay the 5 billion?

Exxon had to put the 5 Billion in an account in order to appeal the decision, they have been collecting the interest since then.

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 12):
I believe the Ninth Circuit - the most liberal circuit in the land - has twice concluded that the punitive damage award wasn't reasonable.

Yup, and Russel Holland reduced it from 5 to 4.5 Billion.

Exxon has tried to settle for 45 million......yes million.

Frankly that is an insult.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 
bushpilot
Posts: 1674
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 4:37 am

RE: Exxon Valdez Oil Spill 17 Years Ago Today.

Sun Mar 26, 2006 4:04 pm

Quoting Bushpilot (Thread starter):
Despite having a $36million profits in 2005


I posted incorrectly, thier 2005 profits were $36billion not million.

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 12):
how many years of that kind of profit would it take to pay the 5 billion?

So it would take them about 6 weeks to have earned the $4.5b.

Anyone interested should check out this site.
http://www.exxposeexxon.com

[Edited 2006-03-26 08:15:13]
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: Exxon Valdez Oil Spill 17 Years Ago Today.

Mon Mar 27, 2006 9:47 am

Quoting SATX (Reply 14):
I wonder what it's like to try and cast one of America's most successful mega-conglomerates as some sort of victim. Do you ever have trouble sleeping at night? As someone who generally strives to support the underdog, I'm rather sickened by folks who always seem to throw their sympathy behind the sure-winner.

I'm not trying to paint Exxon as an underdog. They paid to clean up the effects of the spill. At least two Alaska juries have since rejected attempts to get them to pay more in actual damages, upholding the company's claim that they properly compensated Alaskans who suffered losses from the spill.

What I don't understand is why people think they should be required to pay such a large amount in punitive damages. After all, it was the negligence of one employee that cause the spill. It isn't like Exxon told him to spill all that oil on purpose.

Quoting L-188 (Reply 15):
Yup, and Russel Holland reduced it from 5 to 4.5 Billion.

Exxon has tried to settle for 45 million......yes million.

Frankly that is an insult.

Why?
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: Exxon Valdez Oil Spill 17 Years Ago Today.

Mon Mar 27, 2006 10:45 am

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 17):
Why?

Think about it.

There are 10's of thousands of people who have had to give up their livelyhoods because of the spill. Not just jobs but family boats handed down from father to son and son again. Exxon destroyed a way of life, and that is sure as hell worth a lot more then a lousy 45 mil.

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 10):
Exxon spent $2.2 billion to clean up the spill

No they spent 2.2 by their count making it looked like they did squat. Don't by that PR crap that Houston is comming out with. Exxon has several biologists bought and paid for on their staff that they always refer to when claiming they "Cleaned Up".

Get about two feet down in most gravel beaches in PWS and you will hit oil.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: Exxon Valdez Oil Spill 17 Years Ago Today.

Mon Mar 27, 2006 1:11 pm

Quoting L-188 (Reply 18):
Quoting Halls120 (Reply 17):
Why?

Think about it.

There are 10's of thousands of people who have had to give up their livelyhoods because of the spill. Not just jobs but family boats handed down from father to son and son again. Exxon destroyed a way of life, and that is sure as hell worth a lot more then a lousy 45 mil.

First of all, I don't think your statement is accurate. Even if it was, then those affected should have sued for actual damages. If they could prove that Exxon was in fact at fault for their losses, they would receive compensation.

Quoting L-188 (Reply 18):
No they spent 2.2 by their count making it looked like they did squat. Don't by that PR crap that Houston is comming out with. Exxon has several biologists bought and paid for on their staff that they always refer to when claiming they "Cleaned Up".

Get about two feet down in most gravel beaches in PWS and you will hit oil.

Instead of asserting unsupported anecdotal "facts," you could visit the state's own web page and get accurate information.

http://www.evostc.state.ak.us/Habitat/lingering.htm

Quote:
A 1989-90 survey of nearly 5,000 miles of shoreline documented oil on approximately 1,300 miles of beach. Severity of the oiling was medium to heavy on 200 miles of shoreline. The remaining 1,100 miles of oiled shoreline were considered to have light to very light oiling. Crews visiting beaches in 1993 found hundreds of sites that contained substantial oil deposits.
What happened to the 10.8 million gallons of spilled oil?

A 1992 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) study* estimated that a great majority of the oil evaporated, dispersed into the water column or degraded naturally. Crews recovered 14 percent of the oil; 13 percent sank to the sea floor. Two percent (some 216,000 gallons) remained.

*Wolfe, D.A., M.J. Hameedi, J.A. Galt, G. Watabayashi, J. Short, C. O'Clair, S. Rice, J. Michel, J.R. Payne, J. Braddock, S. Hanna, and D. Sale. 1994. The fate of the oil spilled from the Exxon Valdez. Environmental Science and Technology 28 (13): 561A-568A. Report available at the ARLIS library; e-mail: reference@arlis.org.

In 1997, eight years after the spill, villagers from Chenega Bay returned to nearby beaches to clean some of the most heavily-oiled sites. Under the guidance of the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, the crew of mostly-local residents applied a chemical agent to the weathered oil at five sites, along about one-half mile of beach on LaTouche and Evans islands. They used PES-51, a citrus-based product that binds to oil and floats. This allows both chemical agent and oil to be collected using absorbent pads.

Post-cleanup analyses in 1998 showed that while the cleanup method was largely effective in removing visible surface oil, it had little effect on the large deposits of oil beneath rocks and overburden. Winter storms rearranged the beaches, exposing large quantities of oil that never received treatment. NOAA's Auke Bay Lab found no biological injury due to the cleanup. NOAA's Alaska Fisheries Science Center has further details on how much oil remains today.

Instead of asking Exxon to pay punitive damages, why not force them to continue the cleanup? Or is it what you are really after is money in your own pocket - not the restoration of the environment?
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: Exxon Valdez Oil Spill 17 Years Ago Today.

Mon Mar 27, 2006 2:34 pm

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 19):
1997, eight years after the spill, villagers from Chenega Bay returned to nearby beaches to clean some of the most heavily-oiled sites. Under the guidance of the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, the crew of mostly-local residents applied a chemical agent to the weathered oil at five sites, along about one-half mile of beach on LaTouche and Evans islands. They used PES-51, a citrus-based product that binds to oil and floats. This allows both chemical agent and oil to be collected using absorbent pads.

If Exxon cleaned the beaches then why was the village of Chenga out there in 1998. Face it, if they where clean they wouldn't have been out there. And that was about a mile and a half of the 1300 documented miles.

BTW, I saw news coverage of that activity, Trust me considerable oil was recovered off one beach near the village. A beach the villagers used to collect shellfish, and herring roe on kelp among other traditional foodstuffs.

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 19):
Even if it was, then those affected should have sued for actual damages.

How in the hell to you value a lifestyle that has existed for 1000's of years? How do you value the ablity to collect your own food? How do you value passing down a tradition. All of these where destroyed by Exxon.

The original 5 billion punitive damage judgement is too little IMHO.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 
Chugach
Posts: 925
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2004 10:18 am

RE: Exxon Valdez Oil Spill 17 Years Ago Today.

Mon Mar 27, 2006 5:56 pm

I took the Marine Highway from Valdez to Whittier today, and traveling through that area on the ferry made me think a lot about what happened this weekend 17 years ago. Just a horrible tragedy. No other way around it.

Quoting L-188 (Reply 20):
How in the hell to you value a lifestyle that has existed for 1000's of years? How do you value the ablity to collect your own food? How do you value passing down a tradition. All of these where destroyed by Exxon.

Couldn't say it better myself.
GO ROCKETS
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: Exxon Valdez Oil Spill 17 Years Ago Today.

Mon Mar 27, 2006 10:49 pm

Quoting L-188 (Reply 20):
How in the hell to you value a lifestyle that has existed for 1000's of years? How do you value the ablity to collect your own food? How do you value passing down a tradition. All of these where destroyed by Exxon.

You hire knowledgeable lawyers and sue. People do it all the time. You want to sue Exxon for actual damages, I'm all for it. The punitive aspect is absurd, IMO.
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: Exxon Valdez Oil Spill 17 Years Ago Today.

Tue Mar 28, 2006 1:35 am

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 22):
You hire knowledgeable lawyers and sue.

Ok, how do you sue for what you would have made if the fishing hadn't collapsed.

Fact is that punitive damages is the only way to make up that difference.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 
bushpilot
Posts: 1674
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 4:37 am

RE: Exxon Valdez Oil Spill 17 Years Ago Today.

Tue Mar 28, 2006 6:36 am

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 19):
then those affected should have sued for actual damages.



Quoting Halls120 (Reply 22):
You hire knowledgeable lawyers and sue. People do it all the time.

There is no real way to account for actual damage, that is why the punitive route was taken. Please understand that although x amount of habitat and beach were infected, but this had a huge impact on the fishing industry statewide. I live in Dillingham, in the bristol bay area. We have the richest salmon fisheries in the world. Most of that fish is sent to Japan for thier consumption, the price of red salmon, the price of fish was roughly $1.75 per pound in 1988. In 1989 the price of salmon was at 1.25 and in 1990 it went to 50cents a pound! A quarter of what was offered the year before the spill. The reason for this drop in price was drop of demand in Japan. Why did demand drop, because they heard about 11million gallons being dumped into critical fishing grounds. Granted PWS is well over 1000 miles away if following the coast. But that doesnt matter to the Japanese consumer. This is the case in only one fishery. We didnt have a drop of oil on our beaches but the collective effects of the spill hurt this region badly and it has not recovered since. There were similar effects all over the state for fisherman. Every fisherman knows the gamble fishing is before going into it, but that shouldnt include man-made conditions that effect the fishery without thier control. Hell yes Exxon should pay up. They have made 20x the amount of the lawsuit in the last 10 years. Its simple, just pay up. They fucked over an entire industry, a generation, and a way of life. Like I said earlier, I wouldnt piss on them if thier hair was on fire.
 
slider
Posts: 6805
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2004 11:42 pm

RE: Exxon Valdez Oil Spill 17 Years Ago Today.

Tue Mar 28, 2006 8:01 am

The real story that no one talks much about with regard to the Exxon Valdez disaster isn't economics, lawyers, drunks ship captains, or the eeevils of the big petroleum industry.

The wondrous thing is how our planet helps clean itself.

It is humbling that the tides themselves were ultimately one of the biggest reasons why things got cleaned up, human intervention aside.

This planet is bigger than any of us...far more powerful, far more resilient, and far more deserving, certainly, of good stewardship and conservation.
 
satx
Posts: 2771
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2005 7:26 am

RE: Exxon Valdez Oil Spill 17 Years Ago Today.

Tue Mar 28, 2006 9:36 am

Quoting Slider (Reply 25):
The wondrous thing is how our planet helps clean itself.

We kept letting it 'clean itself' until the 1970's when it got so bad that even average Americans started to say enough is enough. Now the current administration is saying that the legislation enacted then is no longer necessary. How can they say that? The environmental protections that were born of the 1970's pro-environment sentiment are the main (and in some cases only) reason anything ever got better. If the planet could 'clean itself' without our help then such protections shouldn't have ever been needed... but they were. The fact is that the planet takes eons to 'clean' what we can produce in a very short period of time. Just because something is enormously large doesn't mean it's not also extremely fragile. The planet itself can survive almost anything outside of a supernova, but our eco system is far less rugged and needs to be cared for properly. Exxon has shown a general disregard for our environment and disgust toward those who wish to protect it. Punitive damages are intended to prevent further abuses by a guilty party through additional fines intended to amplify the verdict to the point that it becomes too painful to be ignored. If anything, we have seen first hand that the damages are not nearly large enough to serve their purpose.
Open Season on Consumer Protections is Just Around the Corner...
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: Exxon Valdez Oil Spill 17 Years Ago Today.

Tue Mar 28, 2006 1:26 pm

Quoting Bushpilot (Reply 24):
There is no real way to account for actual damage, that is why the punitive route was taken

Punitive damages are awarded not to compensate the plaintiff, but to punish the defendant. As a result, punitive damages cannot be recovered unless it is proved that the defendant's conduct which caused the victim's death was intentional, malicious, or egregious. If you can't establish actual loss, you can't substitute punitive damages.
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: Exxon Valdez Oil Spill 17 Years Ago Today.

Tue Mar 28, 2006 1:34 pm

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 27):
Punitive damages are awarded not to compensate the plaintiff,

Exactly, what sort of dis-incentive is a lousy 45 mil to a company making tens of billions a quarter.....

IMHO the penatly should have been about three times what Holland ruled.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Aesma, PacificBeach88 and 40 guests