It's been 19 years since the Exxon Valdez struck the Bligh Reef and spilled over 11 million gallons of crude oil into Prince William Sound. This devastated the marine ecology in the area, killed many local fisheries industries, and caused a disruption in the foodchain that many estimate will still take decades to recover in some areas. 

In 1994 a federal court ordered Exxon to pay approx 5 billion in damages to 30,000 fishermen, natives and local businesses that suffered economic hardship due to an entirely preventable spill. Exxon's strategy has been simple... continue to stall long enough so that as many of the plaintiffs die off as possible. 14 years after the court order, the case is still ongoing, now before the supreme court. Undoubtedly Exxon will find a way to appeal this and keep it in legal limbo, but let's hope not. Exxon has payed out over a billion for various clean up efforts and other settlements, but much of that money came from insurance settlements from the accident, was recovered in tax write-offs, or had special strings attached to allow Exxon to recover that money down the road. But the main case is still undecided.

This case is about liability, corporate responsibility, and who has to pay the bill when a private corporations' actions cause long term damage to the public at large. When the cameras were rolling and pictures of blackened beaches and thousands of dead birds covered in oil were broadcast around the world, Exxon executives promised everyone would be compensated. Once the cameras turned off, it became a game of stalling as long as possible rather than ante up and pay for their negligence. This continued legal stalling is shameful, and enough is enough. The Exxon spill wasn't a freak accident caused by an act of God, nor was it because of the actions of a "bad apple" drunk captain as many have tried to pin the blame on. This accident was the logical outcome of corporate decisions... let's take a closer look at what hapenned...

When the Valdez struck the Reef it was being driven by the third mate, who was driving by eyeball... the navigational radar was turned off.

The radar was turned off because the company had decided that it was too expensive to operate and maintain, and too expensive and time consuming to properly train the navigators how to use it.

When the Valdez struck the reef there was no disaster barge nearby. Such a barge is always supposed to be present in the area whenever a tanker is leaving port. In this case, there was a barge but it was locked in ice back at port. The company knew this, but ordered the Exxon to leave port anyways without the proper support. If the Barge had been nearby at the time of the spill, it would have been able to jump on containment efforts much sooner. Instead the first responder was another private company that sent out a helicopter with a dispersal agent.

At the end of the day, the company is 100% at fault for this. Even if it was entirely due to a drunk and negligent captain, the ship and crew were owned and employed by Exxon and so they are liable. 19 years after the fact, it's time for Exxon to put their money where their mouth is and pay up!


Comments
on Feb 28, 2008
You are at the wrong place to scream that kind of facts. Draginol will probably say that it is the rich's perogative to never be accountable for their crimes.
on Feb 28, 2008

Uh? What?

I believe people should follow the law and agree Exccon should pay up.

I don't ascribe different rules for different people. I believe individuals should be treated equally, have equal freedoms, and equal responsibilities.

If you want to talk about people having different rules for different classes, you should look in the mirror, Cikomyr.

on Feb 28, 2008
Well, I was going to comment on the article, but the comments seem to be more fun.
on Feb 28, 2008
Good article. Appeals happen, though. It's the way the system works. What if the original judge got something wrong? It wouldn't be fair to not fix it. Of course, it would have to be something that would change the outcome, and hopefully that won't happen.
on Feb 28, 2008
Well, I was going to comment on the article, but the comments seem to be more fun.


I guess you mean the comment (without the s)

I don't ascribe different rules for different people. I believe individuals should be treated equally, have equal freedoms, and equal responsibilities.


But they don't, and that's the whole point here. You are always talking about "keeping the governement in check", where the governement is the only thing a citizen have to protect itself against exploiters on Exxon's scale. When you want the governement to become less powerful, you are creating a world where Exxon and all the Exxon-like companies around us don't care what they do, since they will always outlive whomever they ruined the lives.

The magistratrive body is as powerful as the legislative will allow to make it.
on Feb 28, 2008

True enough Jythier. I'm all for an impartial justice system. It does seem though that 19 years is a tad long for a settlement. What gets me is how the bigger entities can throw up a smokescreen of lawyers and endless appeals to stave off having to pay the consequences for their actions as determined by the court. Some of the plaintiffs, namely members of the Chugach natives in Alaska have passed on in the intervening 14 years since the company was ordered to pay. How long should an organization be able to stall? Is there a limit to how long this can go on for? If Exxon had their way they would keep this stalled until 2050 or later and then say "hey, that hapenned a Loooong time ago buddy, not on our watch!"

on Feb 28, 2008
"hey, that hapenned a Loooong time ago buddy, not on our watch!"


the classic would be "since we have changed our procedure since then, we think we should be spared the payment"