The spilled oil from the grounded Exxon Valdez spreads into Prince William Sound. Photo credit: USGS. |
An oiled white-winged scoter struggles on the beach at Green Island. Photo credit: State of Alaska Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council.
Click all photos to enlarge. |
Some of us remember it. Some of us were too young, or weren't even born yet. But anyone who gives a damn about America and the breathtaking beauty, scale, and delicate ecosystems of its wilderness areas, should burn the
Exxon Valdez catastrophe into their memory:
More than 11 million gallons of North Slope crude oil poured through the punctured steel hull of a tanker grounded on a well charted reef in Prince William Sound on Friday [March 24, 1989] unleashing the largest crude oil spill ever to foul U.S. waters.
[snip]
The disaster threatened to wreak havoc in one of continent's richest marine environments just as herring were returning to spawn and juvenile salmon were migrating from the rivers where they hatched.
The oil spill spread, in part pushed along by storms, ultimately polluting at least 1,300 miles of shoreline. The cause was simple: it was determined that Joseph Hazelwood, the captain of the tanker, was "too drunk to legally operate a ship". After years in and out of court, Hazelwood eventually had to pay a $50,000 fine and do community service.
The environmental aftermath of the spill was heartbreaking, and we haven't seen the end of it:
Some 2,000 sea otters, 302 harbor seals and about 250,000 seabirds died in the days immediately following the spill. Now researchers writing in the journal Science caution that more than a decade later, a significant amount of oil still persists and the long-term impacts of oil spills may be more devastating than previously thought.
[Note: Exxon-funded research says otherwise.]
Humans were profoundly affected too, which has resulted in seemingly endless litigation (going on 20 years) trying to get ExxonMobil to pay up. The latest news is in today's Houston Chronicle.
|
Quarterly profit results for Exxon Mobil Corp.
1Q 2006 -- $ 8.40 Billion
2Q 2006 -- $ 10.36 Billion
3Q 2006 -- $ 10.49 Billion
4Q 2006 -- $ 10.25 Billion
1Q 2007 -- $ 9.28 Billion
2Q 2007 -- $ 10.26 Billion
Source: Exxon Mobil |
Exxon asks high court to void Valdez spill damages
Since the Exxon Valdez plowed into an Alaskan reef in 1989, pouring 11 million gallons of crude oil into the clear waters of Prince William Sound, Texas-based Exxon Mobil Corp. has paid $3.1 billion in fines, cleanup costs and environmental restoration, as well as $300 million in settlements with thousands of Alaskan fishermen, cannery workers and landowners.
[snip]
Exxon already got an Alaskan jury's $5 billion punitive damages award reduced by half. Now it is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to erase it altogether. The high court discussed Exxon's case in private last week and will announce as early as today whether it will accept it.
Now you can see why I've posted the graphic and table of Exxon's quarterly profits. If you're earning approximately TEN BILLION DOLLARS every three months, why is shelling out FIVE BILLION DOLLARS so damned difficult?
There's more below the fold.
Update: The SCOTUS has agreed to hear Exxon's case. See AdamB's comment, and the discussion.
There is another facet to the case:
But if the court decides to hear Exxon's case, which would require the vote of at least four of the nine justices, those harmed by the spill are asking it to also accept their case. It seeks reinstatement of the original $5 billion verdict, which would make the most expensive shipping accident in history even more expensive.
Now, I'll let the following paragraphs speak for themselves:
Asked about the case last week, Tony Cudmore, a spokesman at Exxon's Irving headquarters, directed the Chronicle to a previous company statement, saying: "We acknowledge that the Exxon Valdez oil spill was a very emotional event for many in Alaska, and to some, those feelings remain strong even today. As we have said many times, the Valdez oil spill was a tragic accident, one which the corporation deeply regrets, and one for which the corporation has paid significantly."
The case "is about whether further punishment of Exxon is warranted," it added. Even the reduced $2.5 billion award is higher than any punitive award ever affirmed by a federal appeals court, Exxon attorney Walter Dellinger of Washington said. In fact, he wrote to the high court, the amount is "larger than the total of all punitive damages awards affirmed by all federal appellate courts in our history."
"Emotional event"? Is that all they can say, when the environment was horribly damaged (and not recovering very quickly), and the livelihood and health of those dependent on it have been compromised?
And "further punishment"? The settlement requested is practically pocket change for Exxon. I mean, it has been nearly 20 years of billions and billions of dollars in profits, after all.
I hope Exxon gets the book thrown at them. $5 billion is nowhere near enough, but it's a start.