What is Digg?65 Comments
- internetisscary, on 06/15/2009, -2/+66I love how this has taken 20 years (13 since the first trial) to force them to pay damages...oil companies are straight up evil.
- YME1280, on 06/15/2009, -5/+49Not enough!
- MangalaIII, on 06/16/2009, -0/+385 bucks says this goes on for another 20 years. You think Standard Oil doesn't know how to stall a lawsuit?
- Katalystt, on 06/16/2009, -0/+27many villages where ruined from this.. my families village still cannot eat clams on their island because of exxon, fishries where destroyed, and still to this day have not recovered.. that amount is a slap in the face...
- Peach3s, on 06/15/2009, -2/+29
thats like 1/1000 of their annual income - evodevo1, on 06/16/2009, -0/+24WTF!!! This is only 1/10 of the original damages awarded and 1/5 of the cost of the clean-up! Are you friggin' kidding me? How the judges come up with this number? Shouldn't it be AT LEAST the cost of the cleanup? What about all the damages to wildlife and fishing revenue losses?
- stutimandal, on 06/16/2009, -0/+21They have to pay 5.9% interest for 13 years. It would mean roughly $1.07 billion in the end.
- treas, on 06/16/2009, -0/+20The original judgement was 5 BILLION in punitive damages.
- jdthree, on 06/15/2009, -3/+22I agree that it's probably a fraction of the cost that they caused by their negligence..... which was most likely put into an equation and came out that any punitive damages would be much less than simply putting more money into the ships (or in this case a competent Captain) and equipment.
Too bad the right wing can't get behind the virtue of "big business" doing more for society and making America a greater nation rather than using up all of the infrastructure and our legal system and simply taking everything they can get and then using their profits to buy politicians to continually get more!!!!!!!! - Tarl, on 06/16/2009, -1/+20And they will probably still appeal it and avoid paying.
- Calculon, on 06/16/2009, -0/+12Is that in 2009 $'s or 1989 $'s?
- dhenke, on 06/16/2009, -2/+14Sounds like that's coming out of my $/gallon
- diggyduggle, on 06/16/2009, -0/+10hahhaha, like they will pay a cent.
- nabarg, on 06/16/2009, -0/+10f*ckers. will anyone ever make the oil companies accountable for ANYTHING??
- Piha, on 06/16/2009, -0/+9Can someone sue the courts for being so frigging slow.
- spookyttws, on 06/16/2009, -0/+9Are you kidding?! That is nothing to them, and cannot possibly make up for the damage they did. It should have been at least 2 or 3 billion.
- PeanutCheeseBar, on 06/16/2009, -0/+8In other news, the price of gas at any given Exxon station has just risen by 20 cents per gallon.
- kefkaantakrist, on 06/16/2009, -0/+8... care to elaborate?
I mean, his math is right (507.5 * 1.059^13 = 1069) - that's assuming it is compounded annually. 1092 if its compounded continuously. 897 if not compounded at all.
I guess it's amusing that the interest can cause the amount to grow so much... - MooseOfReason, on 06/16/2009, -0/+7Thinly veiled attack at perceived socialism?
Anyway, I support property rights. I'm assuming either the Alaska or federal government owned Prince William Sound, where the spill occurred. Even though I believe the Sound should be privately owned, there should still be compensation for damages. - inactive, on 06/16/2009, -1/+8took long enough, needs to be more thou...
- AndrewDB, on 06/16/2009, -0/+6I'm not laughing at his math..
Exxon's misfortune (in every cents (more puns) of the word!) is what makes me laugh.. :) - localzuk, on 06/16/2009, -0/+6Amazing how a company manages to keep a case from finishing for nearly 20 years!
Anyone who thinks the judicial systems of the world are fair is blind. - Plopfish, on 06/16/2009, -1/+7It's a 100th (not including the interest owed else its about a 50th) , but still the point is valid.
That's like you majorly ***** up a bunch of ***** and if you make 50K a year you owe 1k in damages, just a slap on the wrist. - inactive, on 06/16/2009, -0/+6Better late than never. The lawyers have been getting paid all this time, you better believe it!
- inactive, on 06/16/2009, -0/+6They're even more evil than you think
http://www.private-eye.co.uk/news.php?article=6&am ...
http://www.private-eye.co.uk/news.php?issue=1238
To sum those articles up, accident in ExxonMobil refinery in Hong Kong prompt honest lawyer to investigate. ExxonMobil responds by launching Zig to prevent any justice, and uses various methods such as planting moles in Ford's (The original honest lawyer) legal team, "misplacing" vital legal data and 600 page reports incriminating ExxonMobil and trying to stifle Freedom of Speech (By putting a gag on Private Eye; not something that's wise, as the Gnome always wins in the end) resulting in Ford having to flee Hong Kong, declaring bankruptcy and having his life and reputation destroyed for the past 17 years, longer than I've been alive. - Lavarock, on 06/16/2009, -0/+6lol way to wait till the economy and oil prices go to ***** before actually charging them. A+.
- inactive, on 06/16/2009, -1/+6Welcome to America, Land of the Rich.
- dalittle, on 06/16/2009, -0/+5I still do not buy gas from Exxon, even 20 year after the Valdez. Maybe more people should vote with their dollar to how they think Exxon conducts their business.
- woofers07, on 06/16/2009, -2/+6but but but... taxes.
- Superbad12, on 06/16/2009, -2/+6Cool. Now if we could just get the gas companies to pay for punitive damages in Africa (specifically Nigeria).
http://www.globalissues.org/article/86/nigeria-and ... - inactive, on 06/16/2009, -0/+3Tbh, the Rockefellers are trying to make ExxonMobil accountable when it comes to, say, global warming. But they only control 25% of the company, so they always get voted down :(
- Tarl, on 06/16/2009, -0/+3I have written my congressional representative(s) and senator(s) involving issues such as this but nothing changes. That doesn't mean I'm going to stop. ;)
- thealsir, on 06/16/2009, -0/+3What else is new, companies will try to eschew responsibility (especially financial responsibility) for *****...I think Exxon could have handled this better and suffered less PR damage, but seeing as how people still buy their oil I wouldn't bank on it. Also, there's bigger and more evil oil companies than ExxonMobil, just putting that out there.
- AndrewDB, on 06/16/2009, -2/+4When I read your sentence.. I couldn't help but break out and laugh ..
- kingfoot, on 06/16/2009, -2/+4***** so now my gas will cost $1 more in a matter of 2 months.. oh wait that just happened... WTF how can people just take this?
- inactive, on 06/16/2009, -0/+2Arlen Specter Vs. Norm Coleman comes to mind for some reason.
- Ford_Prefect2nd, on 06/16/2009, -0/+2do you think it is to little or to much?
- Serume, on 06/16/2009, -0/+2bout damn time
- kemp34, on 06/16/2009, -0/+2It sucks that corporatism overtook our Constitutional Republic.
- MooseOfReason, on 06/16/2009, -0/+2You would either sign an agreement that they lower oil prices by a certain amount for a certain time period, while oil prices are on the rise (so you really wouldn't see the difference), or the government imposes a 'price control' and mandates that gas cannot be sold above a certain price, which would cause shortages.
- MangalaIII, on 06/16/2009, -0/+2Um don't get your gas from Exxon then.
- DrJG, on 06/17/2009, -0/+2"The clean-up alone cost around $2.5 billion."
So the corporates don't have potty training yet? - dreadalus, on 06/16/2009, -0/+2I haven't, either... and probably won't for another 40 years or so, depending on advances in medical technology. Maybe if we all stopped in at an Exxon restroom and took a nice big dump on their floor or sink, they'd get the idea.
- thealsir, on 06/16/2009, -0/+2Various state-owned oil companies come to mind.
- inactive, on 06/16/2009, -0/+1Thats fine, the company has to internalize the cost of negative extrernalities which they have been passing off to society. The firms that were able to operate without being slobs will now have a competitive edge.
- treas, on 06/16/2009, -0/+1I'm pretty sure the people who clean those toilets don't care wtf about the Valdez spill.
- TheTaoOfBill, on 06/16/2009, -2/+3Not enough? Are you serious? They've already paid billions cleaning those beaches. At this point it's getting ridiculious. Most of the people in charge in 1989 are retired by now. And at the time the government forced them to clean those beaches up. Which they did. And the beaches that Exxon never touched are actually cleaner than the ones Exxon was forced to clean because nature has a natural oil eating bacteria that Exxon killed with their high powered pressure washer guns.
People want to keep on punishing them when really they've done just about everything they could do. It was an accident. A stupid accident but an accident none the less. And Exxon has paid plenty for it. It's been 20 years and it's time to move on from this *****. - kemp34, on 06/16/2009, -1/+2We'd do fine without Exxon.
Property rights ought to be enforced in a free society. - kyloe, on 06/18/2009, -0/+1
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/PainAtThePump/story?id=1 ...
One simple CEO, alone, can easily fetch $400 million fresh ones from Exxon, an oil travesty itself.
Oops! oh look, he's also the chairman, so it's all fine.
So, just move along people, move along quietly now... single file!! single file please ma'am... -
Show 51 - 69 of 69 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is