EF! Fined $1million in Idaho
dbraun at u.washington.edu
Mon Nov 11 19:31:23 EST 1996
On Mon, 11 Nov 1996, Steve Shook wrote:
> D. Braun wrote:
> > > OK, by your reasoning, Exxon's fine should have been a tad larger. Maybe
> > > someone can do the exact math, but 50 times the clean-up costs of about 1
> > > billion is 50,000,000,000. That dosen't include the impacts to fisheries
> > > in the spill year, the failed herring roe fishery, or the fact that the
> > > cleanup did not entirely succeed. So, let's add another billion to the
> > > original damages--- now we have punative damages of 100,000,000,000. You
> > > just agreed, in principle, that we should support Exxon's bankruptcy.
> > > Interesting.
> J Zeigler wrote:
> > My reasoning had nothing to do with whether the markup should be 50
> > times or 1 times. Read it again and try not to let your own prejudice
> > show. I said that the Jury determined the level of punishment. I don't
> > seem to remember that the Valdez was an intentional act, seems it was
> > due more to negligence or accident.
> Exactly! Exxon, as a corporation, certainly didn't conspire
> to spill high-valued crude oil.
Hi Steve! I really shouldn't be wasting my time on this topic, but I
thought I'd have some fun. I will add that the oil industry has fought
tooth and nail (willfully) against double-hulled tankers, tug escorts, and
larger crew sizes. The punative damages against Exxon weren't all that
punative, in relation to the company's assets and cash flow. The Valdez
accident was only a matter of time-- and will be repeated.
> > Steve > >
More information about the Ag-forst