Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

US govt seeks $92 mln extra for Exxon Valdez spill
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060601/ts_nm/energy_exxon_valdez_dc ^ | 6 1 2006 | Chris Baltimore

Posted on 06/01/2006 1:34:52 PM PDT by dennisw

US govt seeks $92 mln extra for Exxon Valdez spill By Chris Baltimore 55 minutes ago

The U.S. government on Thursday said it will pursue $92 million in extra damage claims against Exxon Mobil Corp. for the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska, the worst in U.S. history.

Four U.S. agencies including the Justice Department and the state of Alaska say it will cost that much more to clean up lingering environmental damage from when the Exxon Valdez supertanker ran aground in Alaska's Prince William Sound and spilled about 11 million gallons of crude oil.

Irving, Texas-based Exxon Mobil, the world's largest publicly traded oil company, has already paid $900 million in a 1991 civil settlement.

But a "reopener" provision in the deal allowed the government to seek up to $100 million extra for unforeseen damages. Exxon reported a $36 billion profit last year.

The government sent the new cleanup plan to Exxon on Thursday. If Exxon refuses to pay, the government faces a September 1 deadline to file an official claim in court.

Exxon will study the government's request but "nothing we have seen so far ... indicates that this request for further funding from Exxon is justified," company spokesman Mark Boudreax said in a statement.

Exxon agrees that there are "small pockets" of lingering oil, but those are limited to less than two-tenths of 1 percent of the Prince William Sound shoreline, Boudreax said.

"There is no scientific evidence that this oil ... could cause damage to any population or species," he said.

Trustees overseeing Exxon's previous $900 million payment still have about $145 million on hand and that money should be used for additional cleanup, he said.

But government studies done since 2001 have found that there is still oil residue left just below the surface of Alaska's beaches from the spill.

"After extensive review it is clear that populations and habitat within the oil spill area have suffered substantial and unanticipated injuries that are attributable to the Exxon Valdez oil spill," said Alaska Attorney General David Marquez.

Marquez said he was disappointed by Exxon's initial comments. "I hope they will take a long and serious look at our proposal," he said.

Crude oil from the grounded Exxon tanker spread to 1,087 miles of coastline, including the Chugach National Forest, three national parks, four national wildlife refuges and five state parks.

Oil from the spill killed about 250,000 marine birds, 2,800 sea otters, and wreaked havoc on shellfish, mussels and killer whales, according to government estimates.

Exxon is still fighting about $5 billion in punitive damages from the spill in a civil case brought by about 32,000 fishermen, Alaska natives and property owners. That case is still pending in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: Alaska
KEYWORDS: exon; extortion

1 posted on 06/01/2006 1:34:55 PM PDT by dennisw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: dennisw

92 mil is chicken feed to a corporation that pays it's CEO 400mil. But it's insanity that the Feds are after Exxon about a spill that took place so long ago.
Could this be a case of gubbermint lawyers making work for themselves?


2 posted on 06/01/2006 1:37:11 PM PDT by dennisw (We should return to calling them Muhammadans -- Worshippers of Muhammad and maybe Allah)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dennisw
Translated:

Exxon is making "big profits" and we need to find a way to tax a piece of that, outside of the tax code.

This is also known as extortion in criminal circles.

3 posted on 06/01/2006 1:38:39 PM PDT by llevrok (The next greatest generation is now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dennisw
Exxon reported a $36 billion profit last year.

Sounds like gov't extortion.

4 posted on 06/01/2006 1:38:53 PM PDT by ladtx ("It is fatal to enter any war without the will to win it." -- -- General Douglas MacArthur)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: llevrok

Beat me by 14 sec.


5 posted on 06/01/2006 1:39:27 PM PDT by ladtx ("It is fatal to enter any war without the will to win it." -- -- General Douglas MacArthur)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: dennisw
Now that we are done paying for the Spanish American War, how about keeping the phone tax to pay for the Exxon Valdez cleanup for the next 90 years?
6 posted on 06/01/2006 1:40:51 PM PDT by ElkGroveDan (California bashers will be called out)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dennisw
Irving, Texas-based Exxon Mobil, the world's largest publicly traded oil company, has already paid $900 million in a 1991 civil settlement.

But a "reopener" provision in the deal allowed the government to seek up to $100 million extra for unforeseen damages. Exxon reported a $36 billion profit last year.

If Exxon agreed to this provision in the settlement, then they knew that Uncle Sam would come knocking for the extra $100M. They probably put it in the bank waiting for the time to come.

Figure they pay their lawyers a couple mil to fight the feds and eventually settle on about half of what the feds want.

7 posted on 06/01/2006 1:42:38 PM PDT by ContemptofCourt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ElkGroveDan
Now that we are done paying for the Spanish American War, how about keeping the phone tax to pay for the Exxon Valdez cleanup for the next 90 years?

Long Distance Phone Tax Being Dropped
Ohio News Network, OH - 7 hours ago
... The tax to pay for it lasted more than 39,000. You can now "Remember the Maine," a war cry from that bygone era, but forget the phone tax. ...

Long Distance Phone Tax Being Dropped

May 31 2006 11:10PM

A tax on telephone service that has been in place for more than 100 years is being dropped by the federal government.

The Internal Revenue Service announced Wednesday that it will stop collecting the federal excise tax on long-distance telephone service.

First imposed in 1898 to help cover the governments cost of the Spanish-American War, the current rate for the excise tax is 3 %.

Teddy Roosevelt was just a rough rider when the government started taxing long distance phone calls.  They chose to tax them because phones were considered luxuries back then.  In case you didn't know, Spanish-American War ended in 1898.  But the tax has continued for another 108 years. 

Federal appeals courts have now decided the tax should not apply to long-distance service the way that it is currently billed.

8 posted on 06/01/2006 1:50:59 PM PDT by dennisw (We should return to calling them Muhammadans -- Worshippers of Muhammad and maybe Allah)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: dennisw

Right. That was what predicated my comment.


9 posted on 06/01/2006 1:54:27 PM PDT by ElkGroveDan (California bashers will be called out)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: llevrok

Exxon just says how much do you want and passes on the charges. You are right the Rats and Rinos are just extorting money from the public.


10 posted on 06/01/2006 1:55:10 PM PDT by Mark was here (How can they be called "Homeless" if their home is a field?.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: dennisw
The lessons learned and information gained by the experience that was PAID for by EXXON far exceed any amount of $ that the Guberment expended or can demonstrate with any perceived long term damage.

I am of the opinion that this is another Punish the Performer, Punish the Efficient, Punish the Established and redistribute wealth for Political advantage.

Our STUPID Guberment sees a deep pocket and tries to pick it, Theft is Theft.

On an infinitely smaller scale an example....

I drive a nice truck, I'm white, middle aged, I am not wearing a seat belt; next to me is a Hispanic gentleman of the same age driving an old beat up truck and he is not wearing a seat belt.

Who will get the Ticket? Why?

Follow the Money

TT
11 posted on 06/01/2006 2:00:02 PM PDT by TexasTransplant (NEMO ME IMPUNE LACESSET)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dennisw

>>>>"But the tax has continued for another 108 years"<<<<<

Kinda like temporary Toll Bridges

TT


12 posted on 06/01/2006 2:04:32 PM PDT by TexasTransplant (NEMO ME IMPUNE LACESSET)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: dennisw

Exxon's stock value increased 500 percent while this CEO ran the company. I'd say he earned the money.


13 posted on 06/01/2006 2:17:56 PM PDT by Eric in the Ozarks (BTUs are my Beat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: TexasTransplant
The lessons learned and information gained by the experience that was PAID for by EXXON far exceed any amount of $ that the Guberment expended or can demonstrate with any perceived long term damage.

Plus the article says they still have an unspent $145 mil that Exxon has already paid.

Oil from the spill killed about 250,000 marine birds, 2,800 sea otters, and wreaked havoc on shellfish, mussels and killer whales, according to government estimates.

A shot in the dark swag by governmet envirometalists bureaucrats.

14 posted on 06/01/2006 2:22:25 PM PDT by Mind-numbed Robot (Not all that needs to be done, needs to be done by the government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Mark was here
Exxon just says how much do you want and passes on the charges.

They sell their oil at market price. Expenses have little to do with it. But added expenses mean less money goes into capital investment for future production. The low oil prices of 1998-99 are why oil supply is so tight today.

15 posted on 06/01/2006 7:22:15 PM PDT by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: thackney
They sell their oil at market price. Expenses have little to do with it. But added expenses mean less money goes into capital investment for future production. The low oil prices of 1998-99 are why oil supply is so tight today.

One way or another the expense will be felt at the pump. Eventually. The biggest thing that gets my blood boiling is the fact that Alaska had the resources to improve the navigational system, that may of prevented the accident, but failed to use them. They could of improved the system on their dime and then billed the taxpayers of the lower 48. Alaska chose to party with their oil royalties instead of protecting the resources they claim to of cared so much for. Same thing as New Orleans, why have a plan in place when the Feds can bail us out.

16 posted on 06/02/2006 9:49:37 AM PDT by Mark was here (How can they be called "Homeless" if their home is a field?.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Mark was here
They could of improved the system on their dime and then billed the taxpayers of the lower 48.

How do you claim Alaska could bill the lower 48? What other state funds federal projects on their own dime?

17 posted on 06/02/2006 10:24:09 AM PDT by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: thackney
How do you claim Alaska could bill the lower 48? What other state funds federal projects on their own dime?

It would of been an innovate and bold move in proportion to their care of the environment. They had the cash and they choose to party with it!

18 posted on 06/02/2006 12:17:19 PM PDT by Mark was here (How can they be called "Homeless" if their home is a field?.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Mark was here

innovate = innovative


19 posted on 06/03/2006 9:56:29 AM PDT by Mark was here (How can they be called "Homeless" if their home is a field?.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson