Jump to content
  • Announcements

    • olyclimber

      WELCOME TO THE CASCADECLIMBERS.COM FORUMS   02/03/18

      We have upgraded to new forum software as of late last year, and it makes everything here so much better!  It is now much easier to do pretty much anything, including write Trip Reports, sell gear, schedule climbing related events, and more. There is a new reputation system that allows for positive contributors to be recognized,  it is possible to tag content with identifiers, drag and drop in images, and it is much easier to embed multimedia content from Youtube, Vimeo, and more.  In all, the site is much more user friendly, bug free, and feature rich!   Whether you're a new user or a grizzled cascadeclimbers.com veteran, we think you'll love the new forums. Enjoy!
Sign in to follow this  
j_b

exxon valdez follow-up

Recommended Posts

"Exxon, whose net income for 2003 is expected to top $21bn, has not paid out a penny of the $5bn (£2.7bn) in damages originally awarded to the fishing communities a decade ago, launching appeal after appeal and deluging the courts with paperwork. Despite intensive clean-up efforts, Prince William Sound remains polluted by large oil deposits that have destroyed its herring fisheries and wreaked havoc with the once-flourishing wildlife."

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=504799

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Classic short term memory - now the Exxon stations are back as well, and we don't think twice about tankin' up.

 

confused.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like national security has knocked the environment to the back burner: when a fuel barge exploded in NY harbor a while back everyone wanted to know if terrorists were responsible. The explosion turned out to be an accident caused by the owner. Exxon. No one even blinked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

j_b

 

For once we may actually agree. Exxon was, and apparently still is the epitome of the 'evil corporation'. To this day, I refuse to put their gas in my vehicle. They need to pay up, and finish cleaning up their mess.

 

A seperate question, but I'm just curious where the political lines blur .....

 

 

High gas prices: Good, or bad? evils3d.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, Juan there gets about $.04 per pound for his raw beans, though the prices fluctuate wildly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fw: i am all for pricier gas. my top reason is to force us to deal with the end of cheap oil in a sensible fashion (i.e. which does not involve waging war), like investing in alternative sources of energy.

 

as for exxon being the epitome of badness, in the grand scheme of things i suspect there are quite a few others that give it a run for their money (anyone involved in profiteering from war imo). it is interesting to ponder that how close we are to events colors our opinion of the actors involved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wasn't talking about what Juan gets for his beans, I was talking about what we pay for them at Starbucks. Gas is expensive here, cheap there. We pay much more for a coffee bean (especially if it's covered in chocolate) than they pay for a gallon of gas.

rolleyes.gif

Anyway...I never buy gas at Exxon. I'd like to see that company wringed dry of both money and oil. Money can go to Prince William Sound, oil to help the cost of gas right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whatever dudes, bitch at Ashcroft and the Justice Dept.

 

Exxon can net $500million (assuming 10% return on capital) every year they can put off paying the fine. I guarantee they aren't paying that much to the lawyers who are tying it up in court. That's just smart business. Your gripe should seriously be with the govt, not ExxonMobil (who were bastards long before the Valdez spill).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I expect that Microsoft will never pay up its $600 million fine by the EU. They'll use similar tactics. They figure it's much cheaper to pay the lawyers. Even at 3% interest, they are earning $21 million a year, assuming no inflation. So they pay the lawyers a couple million a year. It's a good deal and good business.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This from someone probably getting a portion of their dividend check from Exxon rolleyes.gif

 

No this is from a fed govt environmental regulator who sees enforcement and compliance work made into a mockery because the ultimate enforcers (i.e. the Justice Dept and EPA Dept of Counsel) who implement our enforcement work are spineless or sucking the corporate dick on orders from politicians. DISCLAIMER: I am speaking only for myself and my personal views, and make no claims to represent the views, standards, practices, or policy of the EPA, USACE, Justice Dept, or any other public agency.

 

I worked for the EPA for five years doing CWA Section 401 point source enforcement. I now work for the USACE doing Section 404 wetlands permitting, enforcement/compliance. I've seen 8 figure penalties in cases that I spend 4+ years working on settled for barely six figures. I've seen violators whos cost benefit analysis said it was more effective to violate and fight the fines eventually settling for a small fraction of the assesable fine than to bring the necessary equipment on line to meet permit requirements.

 

A $40 million maximum penalty settled for $100k and some paltry investment in infrastructure....the agency easily spent $350k on enforcement. The permittee is still violating their permit standards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×