Talk of Alaska: Social Impacts of Exxon Valdez Settlement
Tue, February 26, 2008
Posted in Talk of Alaska
On Wednesday (Feb 27) the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in ExxonMobil’s appeal of its punitive damage award from the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill case. If the court doesn’t stop it, a large wave of money will hit Alaska when the punitive damage award comes through. What will happen then? Our guests are preparing to document the social impacts when and if the money arrives.This week’s Talk of Alaska is your chance to talk about the oil spill as the Supreme Court prepares to hear the appeal and we look back on what’s happened in the nearly 19 years since the spill.
HOST: Steve Heimel, APRN
GUESTS:
- Dr. Duane A. Gill, Professor of Sociology, Mississippi State University
- Liesel A. Ritchie, sociologist, University of Colorado Natural Hazards Center
- Live callers statewide
PARTICIPATE:
- Post your comment before, during or after the live broadcast (comments may be read on air)
- Send e-mail to talk [at] aprn [dot] org (comments may be read on air)
- Call 550-8422 in Anchorage or 1-800-478-8255 during the live broadcast
LINKS:
- U.S. Supreme Court Docket 07-219
- Oiled Regions of Alaska Foundation
- ABA: Supreme Court Preview - Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, Docket No. 07-219
- Coping With Technological Disasters: A User Friendly Guidebook (PDF, 216KB)
RELATED ARTICLES:
- Talk of Alaska: Exxon Valdez “The Whole Truth” Campaign (19 Feb 2008)
- State files brief supporting Exxon Valdez plaintiffs (29 Jan 2008)
- Stevens, Murkowski and Young submit Exxon Valdez amicus brief (28 Jan 2008)
- Alaska Congressional delegation files brief in support of Exxon Valdez plaintiffs (25 Jan 2008)
- Exxon Valdez plaintiffs file last brief before Supreme Court oral arguments (23 Jan 2008)
- Amicus brief filed in Exxon Valdez case (21 Jan 2008)
- Legislature files an amicus brief on Exxon Valdez damage case (7 Jan 2008)
- Justice Alito recuses himself from Exxon Valdez ruling (27 Dec 2007)
- New law helps Exxon Valdez spill plaintiffs (14 Dec 2007)
- Legislature toys with Exxon-Valdez element in oil-tax rewrite (5 Nov 2007)
- “Amiable Nancy” may play central role in Supreme Court ruling on Exxon-Valdez (5 Nov 2007)
- Supreme Court takes up Exxon Valdez reopener (29 Oct 2007)
LIVE Broadcast: Tuesday, Feb 26, 2008 at 10:00 a.m. on APRN stations statewide
SUBSCRIBE: Get Talk of Alaska updates automatically by e-mail, RSS or podcast
Comments
17 Comments to “Talk of Alaska: Social Impacts of Exxon Valdez Settlement”
-
Search
-
datebook49.com
See the full calendar
Submit your event
Latest Participation
Clovis -- Very sad to hear this, I had recently discovered his Alaska photoblog, very inspiring and...- Ed ward -- We have the best fire man and women .This is how i no. It started with 1/4 acre and ended...
- Wilbur Joe -- The real question is who is responsible for this low weak run of salmon on the Copper...
- John Hunnicutt -- I was saddened when I heard about this story and my heart truely goes out to this...
Site Credits
Site Policies
Contact Us
I am an Exxon Fisherman Claimant and a CPA. A group of us have been very active in helping claimants prepare financially and personally for the day a court award may be received. I would like to call in to the 10:00 a.m. live broadcast on February 26, 2008. What number should I use and are there any procedural issues I should know about?
Thanks!
Bruce
Bruce — Lines are open for callers starting around 10:00 a.m. Alaska time each Tuesday. You can call us locally in Anchorage at 550-8422 or toll free nationwide at 1-800-478-8255.
We take names and phone numbers from each caller, and then we call back those we’d like to get on the air. Formal guests are arranged in advance, but I’ll pass your comment directly to our host, Steve Heimel, to ensure he gets it before air time.
[...] Public Radio also offers outstanding coverage today as we review the devastating impact billions of gallons of oil had on AK’s rich Prince [...]
Will this be streaming online? I too am a claimant but I live in Austin, TX.
I’m a CPA too, what are the chances?
Ned — There are several public radio stations around the state where you can hear the show live. First stop: http://kska.org/listen/
Are people being prepared for a bad ruling like no money will be paid? What a mental blow and isn’t this counting your chickens before they hatch?
Nathan: Are you kidding? This Supreme Court is loaded with pro business stooges. The second the Supreme Court decided to hear the case I became convinced I wouldn’t see a dime.
But you never know. One way or another this will all soon be over, and that, in and of itself, will be a relief.
Are we learning anything from this experience?
An Exxon Valdez-like incident was almost inevitable and fortunately there was at least a rich American corporation with a reserve of wealth for PWS fishermen to sue. The Sound, too, will heal in due time.
Imagine, now, the impact of a toxic release from the Pebble Mine into the Bristol Bay estuary.
It’s inevitable.
A scar the size of Pebble will be there for countless centuries.
Will Northern Dynasty have the deep pockets or wherewithal to provide recompense to Bay fishermen and will they ever get their day in court when the inevitable happens?
To: Steve Heimel
The Supreme court oral arguements are 30 minutes for each side. For the Exxon Valdez case the Supreme Court has extended the time for each side to 45 minutes. Not much time to make a case but all the written documentation is available to the Justices to base a decision on.
Bruce Gabrys
The focus is on the drunken captain, Joseph Hazelwood. Exxon is arguing that a coporation is not liable for the actions of their employee based upon maritime law from 1818. YET…according to investigative journalist and NY Times best selling author Greg Palast, the Exxon Valdez had a broken radar!!!! Here is a portion of this relevant information from http://www.gregpalast.com:
This story remains untold: the true cause of the Exxon Valdez catastrophe was the oil giants’ breaking their promises to the Natives and Congress, cynically and disastrously, in the fifteen years leading up to the spill. As to Captain Joe Hazelwood, he was below decks, sleeping off his bender. At the helm, the third mate would never have collided with Bligh Reef had he looked at his Raycas radar. But the radar was not turned on. In fact, the tanker’s radar was left broken
and disabled for more than a year before the disaster, and Exxon management knew it. It was just too expensive to fix and operate.
I learned of the senseless crippling of the ship’s radar while working for the Natives as a spill investigator. For the Chugach, this discovery was poignantly ironic. On their list of safety demands in return for Valdez was “state-of-the-art” on-ship radar.
Just to put the settlement amounts in perspective. If the $2.5 Billion Punitive award is upheld, the total amount of the award will be about $4.8 Billion including post-trial interest. Based on these numbers there will be about 28,000 individual claimants that will receive $80,000 or less. The remaining 5,000 individual claimants will receive awards from $80,000 to $4.0 Million. Of the larger awards less than 900 of the individual awards will be greater than $800,000.
The larger awards are primarily to fishing families and their businesses that were directly and subsantially impacted by the spill. The smaller awards are generally the cannery workers, fishing boat crewmen, subsistence seafood users and some of the fisheries that were indirectly affected by the spill (i.e. Bristol Bay, Yukon River, etc.)
Great thread of comments, to which I can’t add much, except to note that apparently Justice Thomas spent the hearing staring at the ceiling. It was also pointed out to me by e-mail that Justice Roberts was a consulting attorney in the Venetie case, which wiped out “indian country” in Alaska. That opinion was written by Thomas. In my humble opinion he did not reach the real substance of the matter, but just repeated what was briefed.
Hello! I live in Anchorage, Orig. from Kodiak and am on the list of those collecting damages if awarded. I have a few questions about the case;
First, Maritime law. Isn’t it out dated? With cell phones, GPS and everything else, this isn’t a world of, “He was at sea.. how can we know what he does out there?” anymore.. right? Isn’t this a very obvious point?
Second; I know a common law practice is to use a previous case to support a current one. If Exxon wins, will this case support every outdated law in the country.. (example would be old laws still active in states like the Carolinas and orig. 13 colony states that have been around for almost as long as Maritime law.. 200 years or so since our country was founded), and will every ship boat captain be able to do whatever they want with no danger to the company they work for?
Does that mean there should be a system in place to hold the Captain responsible if there were another disaster, and if so, how can this one man possibly compensate a state like AK if this happens again and he’s to be held responsible? Would there have to be an insurance company established for such a purpose… and would an insurance company be a good option? Of course a captain couldn’t afford to pay out a 5 billion dollar settlement… but neither can most insur. companies!.. Oil Tanker Captain Insurance?? Lol.. Am I naive on this? If someone were to sue, who would pay if not the employer? Wouldn’t this case going to Exxon support these consequences in future cases? The very idea that Exxon believes the clean up costs should decline the damages in the case is a slap in the face! They haven’t cleaned up the devastation of the effected communities… what about THAT clean up???!
Third; How can Exxon possibly say they’re not subject to Punitive Damages since there seems to be a small laundry list of people claiming to have had knowledge of the captains drinking problem? Why is this not just slapping the judges in the face with an obnoxiously large amount of, “duh”??
If you reply plz do so to my email in case I miss your broadcast.
Thanks for your time
Stacy
I submitted a comment earlier this week, but now have another inquiry. We received from our defense and the state, a packet a month or two ago about the EQSF Exxon Qualified Settlement Fund. It was dated September 17th 2007, although we didnot actually receive it until early 2008.
The paperwork stated the condition of the case, and the anticipations for the future. It stated if Exxon appealed the 2.5 B figure, we would counter-appeal, and raise the punitive damage back to 5 Billion. I know Exxon HAS appealed, but it sounds as if our Lawyers are in court frantically trying to clammer to that lopped in half 2.5 figure still. Are they bound to their word on this.. raising the figure back to 5 bil? Can they send this info out, then change their minds… these packets went to ALL the claimants. Is there anyone else asking this question? Because it seems an awful injustice that half the damage figure could just be snuffed out, especially considering the lengthy nature, and greedy, uncorroporative tone Exxon is playing in this case.
Also, did the 9th circut judges have the right to cut the damage award in half? Im not completely savy conserning the law, but I’ve been hearing info regarding the case and don’t know what holds water.
Thanks again
Stacy
I was listening to the broadcast while driving and wanted to add to the Weatherization disscuion. As A builder in Homer who does energy rated const(25 yrs) I wanted to address a problem created by solving another. When you tighen up a house to reduce heatloss you then create indoor air pollution, the buildings ability to breath therefore causing the need to ventilate. will that be part of the subsidizing program? Prt 2 In the early 80s the univ had an energy program that taught energy conservation methods and const. When the economy due to oil reduction hit bottom the program was discontiued. How about subsidizing that program again. High fuel cost are here to stay. David Gerard
Mr Gerard, I’m glad you mention that. The tightening of houses in New England in the 70s also resulted in increased indoor air pollution (sick building syndrome).
I’ve often wondered if we could get more efficient wood stoves (less leakage indoors) and steambath stoves and Toyo stoves we would be better off than a simple weatherstripping allowance from the legislature. [mold is also a major concern, especially for communities already with a high respiratory infection rate.]
Funny this topic should come up at this time. I just wrote an article on “indoor air pollution” that should be posted soon on http://www.solidsurfacealliance.org and hopefully picked up by http://www.buildclean.org
Wood stoves when supplied with outdoor combustion air work great. Toyo and Monitor oilstoves are closed combustion heating devices which make them great for energy efficient considerations. I believe the Toyo qualifies for AHFC energy rated home loans when building a 5 star home. This state should be leading the way on energy conservation when is comes to home construction. Some energy raters continue to use the Canadian heat loss program, what does that say about our priorities? AHFC should also not be turning down those home builders who feel less is better. Where did all the incentives go?