Exxon can appeal $2.5bn oil fine

Exxon can appeal $2.5bn oil fine

news.bbc.co.uk

Exxon Mobil has won the right to appeal against a $2.5bn (£1.21bn) damages bill relating to a 1989 Alaskan oil spill.

The US Supreme Court said it would hear the appeal against record damages due to victims of the Valdez oil spill.

...lawyers for the victims dispute the charge that the award is too high and argue that the damages represent "barely more than three weeks of Exxon's net profit".

In 2006, Exxon reported the highest ever net annual profit for a US business at $39.5bn.

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.exxposeexxon.com
www.jomiller.com
seattlepi.nwsource.com
en.wikipedia.org

[edit on 29-10-2007 by goosdawg]

"Considered one of the most devastating man-made environmental disasters ever to occur at sea," they're still fighting this nearly twenty years later.

Some of the victims have died over the ensuing years, and that's just the human ones.

The US Supreme Court?!

Well I guess the fix is in.

Anyone have any doubts as to how this is going to go down?

news.bbc.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

Its too bad this is going to an appeal. I know what your getting at, and im sure your right, Exxon will get off, or have to pay considerably less.

We can still hope cant we?

(BTW, wicked avatar.)

Well, they've got the deep pockets, don't they?

And now they're trying to wrap themselves in "important issues of constitutional dimension," even as their poster boy guts it to achieve his means.

Con-stitution, is more like it...

And this takes place as oil breaks through US$93 a barrel.

Source | BBCNews | Oil prices break through $93 mark


[edit on 29-10-2007 by goosdawg]

They have deep pockets, so what? You don't base a settlement on their profits, you base it on actual damages. I bet you did not feel bad when oil was dirt cheap and the oil companies were NOT making huge profits.

Originally posted by 4thDoctorWhoFan
They have deep pockets, so what?

His/her point wasnt that they can pay huge amounts of cash and not feel it. His/her point was that they can buy their way out of this, by "donating" to the right party for instance.

I bet you did not feel bad when oil was dirt cheap and the oil companies were NOT making huge profits.

I actually dont see your point here...

reply to post by 4thDoctorWhoFan


Yeah they've got deep pockets and can afford to fight this until we're all dead.

How do you put a price tag on the gross and ongoing, irreparable damage that occurred to a pristine environment, due to negligence on the part of their employee?

And you'd lose that bet...


[edit on 29-10-2007 by goosdawg]

Originally posted by goosdawg
How do put a price tag on the gross and ongoing, irreparable damage that occurred to a pristine environment, due to negligence on the part of their employee?

For starters, it was an accident. Its not like they intentionally set forth to release the oil in a prestine environment. Secondly, you cannot keep an eye on every employee. They have a policy in place that says you cannot drink or do drugs on the job. Blame the individual person who caused the problem. I know that courts don't think this way but they should. Our entire country has become sue crazy. Hell, a lot of people sue as a way to make a living.
Anyway, they would not have to keep fighting it if there would have been a reasonable settlement instead of some obscene amount of money.

reply to post by 4thDoctorWhoFan


They are responsible for that ship even being in that environment, and they are responsible for whatever their employees do with that ship.

I would counter that this situation is indicative of a general avoidance of personal responsibility on all levels of society.

If Exxon wishes to conduct business in such a sensitive area, they need to be held fully accountable for the dirty footprints they left behind.

Saying, "we're only partially responsible for what our employee did with our ship," is irresponsible, and completely in character for a huge multinational corporation that only answers to their stockholders.

reply to post by goosdawg


Well I disagree because lets say I have a business which includes 10 drivers. If one of my drivers stops at a bar during his deliveries and gets drunk then gets into an accident, I should not be held liable. I did not tell him to stop and get drunk. Why should I be held liable? By all means sue the driver but not me. This is one reason why insurance and costs of goods are steadily increasing. Its a sham and all about money.

The same can be said if someone is visiting your house and falls down your stairs. You are held liable and can be sued and lose your house. Why? Its not my fault you fell down the stairs. If you are to retarded to walk down stairs don't blame me. Take responsibility for your own actions.

reply to post by 4thDoctorWhoFan


An employee represents the business by whom they are employed.

What they do "on the clock" is a direct extension of that entity, good or bad.

That's why the employer is held accountable for the actions of their employees.

It's a part of doing business, and they know it, or they wouldn't bother with background checks to weed out potential liabilities.

A company that has been granted access to resources in a protected environment has an added responsibility to ensure that their actions, while there, are held to a higher standard.

Likewise, a company that entrusts their employees with potentially deadly equipment, like a delivery truck, an airliner or a single-hulled supertanker filled with crude-oil, has a responsibility to the community to ensure that their operators are qualified to pilot that equipment in a safe and responsible manner.

Companies, as a means of maximizing their profits, have been shown in the past to shirk these responsibilities unless regulated by the government and forced to comply.

By dragging out their appeals in this case, Exxon is weighing the millions they'll spend attempting to avoid their responsibility, against the billions they owe us all for the lax oversight of their employee who caused this shameful and ongoing environmental disaster.

That's despicable and morally bankrupt.

And soulless corporate greed at it's most reprehensible.

That's why I haven't bought a drop of Exxon gas since 1989, and would rather walk than ever consider doing so, whatever the price.

Just as it pays to be careful whom you invite into your home, keep in mind, if they crap on your doorstep, or throw-up on your sofa, if they ever want to come back, the responsible thing for them to do would be to pay to clean-up after themselves.

Anyone who blows-off that responsibility, shouldn't be invited back.

Of course this concept of fair play gets thrown right out the window if they're in bed with the "decider" who'll just make the "kids" pick-up the tab.

Originally posted by goosdawg
An employee represents the business by whom they are employed.

What they do "on the clock" is a direct extension of that entity, good or bad.

That's why the employer is held accountable for the actions of their employees.

It's a part of doing business, and they know it, or they wouldn't bother with background checks to weed out potential liabilities.

Exactly!
Its only this way because of the lawyers and citizens going sue crazy. A long time ago people actually took responsible for their own actions instead of trying to blame someone else.

reply to post by 4thDoctorWhoFan


It's only this way because it's the way it been forced to be.

A long time ago the responsible parties, i.e., big business, would stick their nose in the air and tell the aggrieved parties, "stuff-it, if you're not happy with what we've done, that's tough!"

And so the parties' wronged were forced to turn to the judicial system to leverage the irresponsible bullies to behave in an ethical manner.

It's not a case of trying to blame someone else, it's a case of arrogant, well-healed entities trying to dodge their ethical and moral responsibilities to those they've trod upon with malice and disregard.

And yes, there's bad seeds on both sides of this equation, but should we let the BIG fish off the hook in an attempt to somehow balance the sins of the little fish?