When $10 Billion Isn’t Enough
Today, Exxon Mobil recorded the highest quarterly profit ever for a publicly traded U.S. company, raking in $10.71 billion in the fourth quarter of 2005. The previous record was $9.92 billion, set by Exxon in the third quarter of 2005.
Apparently, that’s not enough. Exxon wants the money it had to pay as punishment for the 1989 Valdez oil spill back:
Exxon Mobil Corp. urged a federal appeals court Friday to erase the $5 billion in damages an Alaska jury ordered the oil giant to pay for the 1989 Valdez oil spill.
Exxon attorney Walter Dellinger told a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that the company should be liable for no more than $25 million in punitive damages. Punitive damages are meant to deter and punish misconduct.
If a company pulls in $10 billion in profits a quarter, a $25 million penalty won’t deter anything.
More on Exxon at Exxpose Exxon.
Judd, even the $5billion was not enough, they have earned enough by delaying paying the damages this long by investing what they should have paid out long ago.
January 30th, 2006 at 1:32 pmSo, we have a company that has put off paying its fines for 17 years and is posting the highest profit in American history not wanting to pay its fines.
I am sure George Bush will talk up Exxon/Moile profits as being a sign of a strong economy, while their product and their Valdez spill help to ruin the environment.
Go big oil!
January 30th, 2006 at 1:36 pm9/11 changed everything. Nationalize the oil and energy industry now! We are at war!
January 30th, 2006 at 1:38 pmDidn’t the republicans in congress give the oil/energy industry a mutibillion dollar tax cut just this fall?
wtf for?
January 30th, 2006 at 1:44 pmDick The Pastey Gangsta must own stock in Exxon Mobil as well.
January 30th, 2006 at 1:45 pmWell, we are fortunate that these crooks and their bushco friends must report their earnings. I wonder how much they were able to hide? This is what bushco promised and they have delivered. Consumers stand by. . . it’s only going to get worse.
January 30th, 2006 at 1:50 pm#4 - Can you fill in the blank: “corporate ***** ” (Five letter word, means: ‘prostitute’, begins with the letter ‘W’, and rhymes with “floor†and “poorâ€)
Pres. Bush and his administration were bought and paid for by big business and big oil. Any actions that will limit their access to oil, or impose penalties will be ignored and fought by the current administration.
Republican: the party of big business, big government, and special oil interests.
January 30th, 2006 at 1:52 pmI propose we change the stars on our once great flag for the top 50 American Co. logos(measured by profitability, of course).
January 30th, 2006 at 1:52 pmThat is obscene.
January 30th, 2006 at 1:52 pmkindness,
Washington Post
July 28, 2005
Energy Tax Breaks Total $14.5 Billion
Judd,
Is there a video clip to go with that image? I would like to hear what CNN had to say.
January 30th, 2006 at 1:54 pmKindness, yes, republicans did give them a multibillion-dollar tax break this past fall. I can’t even imagine how anyone in Congress justified that to their constituents, but, then again, apparently Representatives don’t have to bother answering to their constituents anymore.
And Keith, even if slimebucket Cheney doesn’t own Exxon stock (although I’m sure that he must), what the hell, Exxon helped write the energy policy, so why should Exxon pay for any disaster it causes?
Bastards!
January 30th, 2006 at 1:58 pmHow much is that in terms of dollars/American driver?
January 30th, 2006 at 2:04 pmI don’t have the video clip. The graphic was really the most interesting thing, so I didn’t bother pulling it.
January 30th, 2006 at 2:05 pmI can’t believe anyone buys oil from Exxon or Mobil.
The gas station I go to gets their oil from Venezula.
Why are we lining their pockets?
January 30th, 2006 at 2:05 pmThis is so depressing.
I think these record oil company profits are hilarious. I make so much money, I could afford gas if it was $10.00 per gallon. I don’t give a crap. But I do think it is hilarious when the Dems and liberals blame Bush and the Republicans for high oil prices, when all they’ve done for the last 30+ years is thwart every attempt at domestic oil exploration and refinery expansion. My only regret is not owning any stock in any of the major petroleum companies.
January 30th, 2006 at 2:06 pmDidn’t the republicans in congress give the oil/energy industry a mutibillion dollar tax cut just this fall?
wtf for?
Comment by kindness
How do you think they got racked up those record profits, you communist! Aren’t you pro-business?
January 30th, 2006 at 2:06 pmWolfoputz posted this link on 1/28. It’s dificult to read. I could only read it piecemeal since it was so distressing to me. And it’s taken this long before I could even comment.
http://prweb.com/ releases/ 2006/ 1/ prweb338782.htm
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/
Finally today, I contacted the U.N. via e-mail. (The only place I found was “Make a comment about our website” so I used that. I don’t know if this will do any good, or if they will even respond, but I had to do something.
January 30th, 2006 at 2:09 pmYeah, funny, Stud.
January 30th, 2006 at 2:09 pmYou’d have no problem with 10.00/gal gas, but damned if we can get minimum wage over 5.15/hr!
I think these record oil company profits are hilarious. I make so much money, I could afford gas if it was $10.00 per gallon. I don’t give a crap. But I do think it is hilarious when the Dems and liberals blame Bush and the Republicans for high oil prices, when all they’ve done for the last 30+ years is thwart every attempt at domestic oil exploration and refinery expansion. My only regret is not owning any stock in any of the major petroleum companies.
Comment by SUV driving stud
Liar! You are too young to remember gas lines. You won’t look like such a stud trying to roll your SUV up-hill to the pumps, only to find out your license plate doesn’t get to buy gas at $20.00 a gallon until tomorrow.
January 30th, 2006 at 2:09 pmAnd besides, SUVs are for soccer moms, you pansy, Real men drive pick-up trucks down to the monster truck pull at the Power Bullet.
January 30th, 2006 at 2:11 pmIsn’t this Bork prophesy. Didn’t Robert Bork write a book saying in the end basically 3 companies were needed to fend off a monopoly. Well there you have it Exxon Mobil, Shell Texaco, and Amaco BP. Now what about OPEC? Tracy, I never heard back from you on this. Please if you have time i’d love to hear from you. Sincerely, TFM
January 30th, 2006 at 2:11 pmSo in other words Exxon is saying that they don’t just want more they want it all…for themselves. Unbridled capitalism + in the pocket politicians + treatment for companies better than treatment for citizens + secret meetings with the Lord of the Underworld (a.k.a. Cheney) = a big s**t burrito for the rest of America in the near future.
I wonder how much of this amazing profit is actually going to the research and development of “new” and “renewable” energy sources which, I believe, is part of a condition for their huge tax breaks.
January 30th, 2006 at 2:12 pm#19-
You are right, I don’t know anything about gas lines. But I do know that we wouldn’t have to worry about gas lines if we produced our own oil, and we not beholden to the Arabs, Mexicans, Russians, and Canadians for just about all of our oil.
January 30th, 2006 at 2:12 pm#19-
You are right, I don’t know anything about gas lines. But I do know that we wouldn’t have to worry about gas lines if we produced our own oil, and we not beholden to the Arabs, Mexicans, Russians, and Canadians for just about all of our oil.
Comment by SUV driving stud
Yes, I’m right. And you don’t know shit, Jack. Now climb back in your soccer mom’s SUV and STFU!
January 30th, 2006 at 2:14 pmGiddy-
I drive a Hummer H3. I hardly consider it to be a soccer mom SUV. I get lots of compliments, and chicks really dig it. I get laid all the time.
January 30th, 2006 at 2:15 pmSUV,
January 30th, 2006 at 2:19 pmThat is funny stuff.
9/11 changed everything! Why aren’t we rationing? Like during the last oil-crisis and WWII? We are at war people! Got any chocolate bars? I hear SUV driving stud will trade Hershey bars for some extra large nylons for himself.
January 30th, 2006 at 2:19 pmHere is a reactionary vehicle for those who have time. I personally was offended by the testimony of the oil company execs sans the oath part. So i think to suggset to your congressional staffer to have your congress person protest by asking that all favorable interests before their committees by pass the oath part. If the Oil company execs can come before congress and not have to swear to tell the truth, why should any one else? Shouldn’t that be contempt, and what rule did Sen. Stevens use? Sorta instantly makes a mockery of any hearings doesn’t it. That’s right up there with Mitch McConnell braging about helping to dog a bill in hopes that it would fail in the courts. What a waste of precious time and legislative credibility.
January 30th, 2006 at 2:21 pmThe question that should be asked is what the oil companies intend to do with the profits. Will they use it to increase oil refinery capacity?
http://www.energybulletin.net/8949.html
January 30th, 2006 at 2:21 pmGiddy-
I drive a Hummer H3.
Translation: Giddy, may I give you a Humjob, please, Sir?
January 30th, 2006 at 2:22 pmI would never be proud to drive an earth-choking gas whore like a Hummer.
January 30th, 2006 at 2:22 pm#19, GGG, I remember pushing my Volkswagen Rabbit the last few yards into the gas station on “odd” days during the gas line era–I’d laugh my ass off if I could see someone trying to push their SUV to the gas station! Ah, I can dream, can’t I?
January 30th, 2006 at 2:22 pmNo thanks.
January 30th, 2006 at 2:22 pm#27-
Rationing? Nah, hells no. This is America. Free market. Haves and have-nots. Let those that can afford it buy the gas. Maybe this will lead to all types of good things, like increased use of mass-transit, and decreased oil consumption, over-all. There is a silver lining in every cloud, people.
January 30th, 2006 at 2:23 pmAh, I can dream, can’t I?
Comment by Jane E. Schneider
So is he, Jane. Dreaming about owning a Hummer H3 and giving me a humjob.
January 30th, 2006 at 2:24 pmIgnore the little pansy or Judd will get mad. Don’t wanna piss Judd off. I’ve had my fun.
January 30th, 2006 at 2:25 pm#29-
Maybe after a general outcry, the tree-huggers will actually allow Dems to give the okay for expansion of oil refining capacity in this country. Yet another good outcome to arise out of high gas prices.
January 30th, 2006 at 2:27 pmparting shot: You know what they say, the bigger the car, the smaller the “eqiuipment”. He only gets laid once, they don’t come back because he didn’t satifsy them the first time.
Overcompensating for a deficiency.
January 30th, 2006 at 2:27 pm#STUD
Then lets get rid of oil all together… and dont be a quiter saying how can we do that???
Look up how the American democrats won WWII and built the most complex machine ever built by human beings ..the nuclear bomb. The manahattan project was what happens when a country demands that a change be made. If oil is such a threat then the smart thing to do is to kick the habit and switch. Not only CAN it be done… we have examples of things far harder that WAS done by democrats… the nuclear bomb was far harder to make in secrecy than would be a new manhattan project to rid ourselves of oil altogether…
January 30th, 2006 at 2:28 pmSUV,
January 30th, 2006 at 2:28 pmBeing that confrontational gets old really quick…boring…just another flamee looking for a flamer.
Hey suv driving studmuffin, we DO NOT have enough Oil reserves left anywhere in the US to include Anwar to supply all the demand here, BTW Anwar only has enough oil to give 1 years total reserve before all oil is pumped, Google peak oil and weep, within 10-15 years there is not going to be enough oil to go around and then it is only going to get worst.
January 30th, 2006 at 2:29 pmSUV,
Glad to see you have all of your priorities straight. You’re obviously a republican. No worse insult than that.
January 30th, 2006 at 2:29 pmShows your lack of intellegence. The H3 is the ultimate soccer mom SUV. They created it for soccer moms who think the H2 is too big. You are driving the stupidest looking soccer mom SUV created.
The girls are laughing behind your back.
wwallace
January 30th, 2006 at 2:30 pmOT
CREW Sues DHS Over Continuing Katrina Cover-Up; Bush Administration Fails to Provide Docs on Inadequate Preparedness and Response to Disaster
Bwahahaha!
January 30th, 2006 at 2:32 pm#43… well he is republican right? So Stud you dont use condoms right? That would be against what Bush says to do… so that means a newly christened soccor mom will be driving your suv soon … stud it up boy…remember NO CONDOMS …Bush says so.
January 30th, 2006 at 2:33 pmShows your lack of intellegence. The H3 is the ultimate soccer mom SUV. They created it for soccer moms who think the H2 is too big. You are driving the stupidest looking soccer mom SUV created.
The girls are laughing behind your back.
wwallace
Comment by Spudge_Boy
Precisely. He probably has never even been close to one. I have. Try driving an H2 in a city. Not!
January 30th, 2006 at 2:34 pmThis shows just how young and ignorant you are. It has nothing to do with who has the money. Rich, poor, young, old, black, white. It didn’t matter in the ‘70 s and it won’t matter in the future.
You are not special.
wwallace
January 30th, 2006 at 2:34 pmSUV, are you an OBGYN giving your love to the women?
January 30th, 2006 at 2:35 pmReal men drive an M1A1 Abrams tank. Get me a Humvee with a Mark 19 automatic ‘nade launcher on it and I met let you give me that humjob, Daisy.
January 30th, 2006 at 2:37 pm#45-
Hells no, dude. No rubbers here. If a chick isn’t on the pill, we do it Texas-style. Pull and shoot, baby.
January 30th, 2006 at 2:38 pmCome on SUV, condoms are a pertorleum product with all the chicks you get you could be wasting that much extra petroleum thereby jacking up the prices so that only the priviliged few could by it. Don’t waste such an opportunity.
January 30th, 2006 at 2:42 pm#49-
You seem to be fixated on recieving fellatio from another man. Spudge? Can you help this dude out? You know, just like the 70’s. You guys can re-live the glory days of the Villiage People. YMCA, baby!
January 30th, 2006 at 2:42 pmWhen $10 Billion Isn’t Enough…
ExxonMobil reports record $10 billion quarterly profits, wants to cancel its $5 billion Valdez oil spill penalty. Can you say “chutzpah,” kids?…
January 30th, 2006 at 2:42 pmSUV, I know you’re only here to antagonize us. You should try reading some of RightPunch’s posts. He does a good job explaining why you feel this need. I forgive you.
January 30th, 2006 at 2:43 pm#51-
Nah. But I’ll tell you what. I’ll start using Petroleum Jelly to lube these tricks up.
January 30th, 2006 at 2:44 pm#54-
I’m not here to antagonize. I’m here so that you all will recognize. This is free-market economy. The only reason the oil companies are making these profits is because of us. We ENABLE them. So start car-pooling, or quit bitching. By the way, I’ll give you a ride anytime, honey.
January 30th, 2006 at 2:47 pm#51-
Nah. But I’ll tell you what. I’ll start using Petroleum Jelly to lube these tricks up.
Comment by SUV-driving stud
You must really be hard up if you have to steal some pukes Hummer and still have to pay for it.
January 30th, 2006 at 2:48 pmSUV you are so stupid. While you are having monkey sex and slinging shit pies with your fellow bush buddies just keep in mind that most people that have any value as human beings laugh at the likes of you … gah! never mind you totally dont care. Go back to reading your porn and pretending you have ever had sex or drivin a car.
January 30th, 2006 at 2:49 pmI think this is on topic.: http://www.nationalreview.com/ comment/ learsy200511041337.asp
January 30th, 2006 at 2:49 pmA pair of stories in the newspaper tell the sad truth about America today (along with a quote from a third story):
Chaplain shares reality of Iraq;
Exxon sets record profit;
January 30th, 2006 at 2:49 pmOnce again, TP is misleading their robots. The case no. is No. 97-35192
This is an appeal to the court’s rejection of the $5 billion award as being excessive and unconstitutional.
From the opinion filed Nov 7, 2001 by Judge Kleinfeld:
This is an appeal of a $5 billion punitive damages award
arising out of the Exxon Valdez oil spill. This is not a case
about befouling the environment. This is a case about commercial fishing. The jury was specifically instructed that it could not award damages for environmental harm. The reason is that under a stipulation with the United States and Alaska, Exxon had already been punished for environmental harm. The verdict in this case was for damage to economic expectations for commercial fishermen.
The plaintiffs here were almost entirely compensated for their damages years ago. The punitive damages at issue were awarded to punish Exxon, not to pay back the plaintiffs.
January 30th, 2006 at 2:49 pmDon’t hold your breath…but then again…why don’t you? :)
January 30th, 2006 at 2:49 pmI’m not here to antagonize. I’m here so that you all will recognize. This is free-market economy.
That’s the funniest thing I’ve seen all day. You actually think you live in a free market economy? Why don’t you go out and apply for a license to operate a radio station out of your home. Let me know how that works out for you, k?
January 30th, 2006 at 2:50 pm#56 I prefer nationalizing the US energy system and converting us all over to hydrogen. If you dont know what hydrogen is look up “Periodic Table” on google and the very first square on that table is hydrogen …it is also the H part of H2O which is well …water.
January 30th, 2006 at 2:51 pmThe plaintiffs here were almost entirely compensated for their damages years ago. The punitive damages at issue were awarded to punish Exxon, not to pay back the plaintiffs.
Comment by Steed Lankershim
Hey Cankersore? Do you just do pro bono work for the oil companies? Or do you take any case that comes along?
January 30th, 2006 at 2:52 pm#58-
Who said anything about porn, dude? Monkey sex, and shit pies? C’mon. Whatever you and your wife do at home, keep it at home. We are trying to talk about the issues here.
January 30th, 2006 at 2:53 pm#15
Big oil has thwarted any attempts at alternative energy for the past 40 years.
January 30th, 2006 at 2:53 pm#62-
Alright, Lily. I’ll listen to you and roll-up out of here. Peace to all. Don’t be suckers. Support domestic oil exploration and refinery expansion. Have a good day.
January 30th, 2006 at 2:55 pmhttp://www.m-w.com/ cgi-bin/ dictionary?va=punitive
January 30th, 2006 at 2:56 pmEven if we pumped all the domestic oil we could, it would be a drop in the bucket compared to what we need.
January 30th, 2006 at 2:56 pmSo is this about punitive damages being constitutional?
January 30th, 2006 at 2:57 pm#69: Never!
January 30th, 2006 at 2:57 pm#62-
Alright, Lily. I’ll listen to you and roll-up out of here. Peace to all. Don’t be suckers. Support domestic oil exploration and refinery expansion. Have a good day.
Comment by SUV-driving stud
If you support legalizing marijuana and hemp for any and all purposes, I’ll think about it. It’s Constitutional, insofar as the Constitution itself is written on 100% hemp.
January 30th, 2006 at 2:58 pmGiddy,
January 30th, 2006 at 2:58 pmRead the opinion. Yoy know how to look up right, you’re not stupid.
Hey every body on the left that HATES nuclear energy. Lookup pebble bed reactors. With a pebble bed reactor all engineers could just walk out of the power station and never come back and no melt down would occur EVER. The laws of physics would have to change for a pebble bed reactor to melt down. That is step 1…. Now imagine if we built several of those pebble bed reactors and used them to create the electricty needed to split hydrogen away from water in mass. Then we would have unlimited portable fuel in the form of hydrogen and unlimited electricity coming from pebble bed nuclear reactors….
No more need for coal, oil, gas. No need for old style nuclear reactors. No need for windmills all over the freakin place. No need for Exxon Mobile.
Wouldnt the republicans be surprised if the democrats started making nuclear energy the center of their drive to replace oil?
http://www.google.com/ search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=RNWE,RNWE:2005-28,RNWE:en&q=pebble+bed+reactor
January 30th, 2006 at 2:59 pmDo you guys know that during WWII, Dubya’s poppy flew a plane (that actually saw some combat) using marijuana seed oil as a lubricant. He did get shot down though.
January 30th, 2006 at 3:02 pmGiddy,
Read the opinion. Yoy know how to look up right, you’re not stupid.
Comment by Steed Lankershim
If I was stupid and gullible I’d read the opinion. I’m not, and I don’t need to.
January 30th, 2006 at 3:03 pmSUV,
January 30th, 2006 at 3:04 pmI can understand your remark that showing people that we use oil and we are the problem. Unfortunately your solution is empty. It reminds me how Bushie puts out his ideas. If you think it is that way it will be that way. Just telling people to stop driving, unfortunately, is unrealistic. Our society isn’t set up that way and it has been built on a motorized citizen. What needs to be done and, I am trying, is to get the idea out that the society has to change. That includes infrastructure, mass transit, mindset, etc. That needs movers and shakers in political positions. They are the ones that need to change the most. I think that everyone who cares about these issues does what they can to reduce their usage of oil products but the major steps need to be taken at the major level. Now, when that will happen….that’s the question. And if you want to use your angst in a better way, try using it on some pols. It will make you feel a whole lot better.
I’m with Stud!
America has dick in terms of oil reserves, but let’s the shit out of this place, just for yucks.
And let’s expand our refinery capacity, so we have someplace to process all the oil we’ll have to buy from whatever country is still selling it to us in 2007.
Let’s all swap our dollars for Euros, ’cause that’s going to be the new petro-currency in a few months.
Oh, and let’s all buy H3s, because that’s the sort of overpriced hick-toy that makes even buttheads look screwable, even when you’re out of roofies.
January 30th, 2006 at 3:11 pmIf a chick isn’t on the pill, we do it Texas-style. Pull and shoot, baby.
That’s nice, I’m sure you have lots of STDs, too. And, btw, pulling out isn’t a reliable form of birth control. Loser.
January 30th, 2006 at 3:12 pmOops. That would be “but let’s DRILL the shit of this place.”
January 30th, 2006 at 3:12 pmYeah it would be easy to blame the tree huggers but I think the problem is more serious unless you are willing to go after shale oil at $80 a barrel minimum.
The real answer to why the oil companies haven’t invested in oil refineries in that they know the amount of oil they find in the future will only get smaller. It makes more sense to transport refined materials than crude oil, so in 30 years when gasoline no longer powers our cars oil companies wont be stuck with a refinery that has 30 years of life left in it and they will actually be importing refined products to go directly to market. It is a lot easier to refine in west africa and saudi arabia than in houston and oil companies know that they only have maybe 5-10 years worth of pinched refining capacity as the price of crude catches up. It should also be pointed out that oil companies supply the crude to refineries. They actually make less money from crude if there is a kink in the hose at the refining end. Refineries are just big hedges for oil companies…if crude goes up the refineries make less money…if crude goes down they make more money. They are all owned by the same companies that pull it out of the ground in the first place.
January 30th, 2006 at 3:14 pmI posted on the Katrina factor of this on my blog, which I think is something Democrats should definitely bring to the public attention.
January 30th, 2006 at 3:17 pmRead the history. Lawyers and judges opinions are always for sale:
From a great book you can read on line or download for free
Pardon me while I weep for the poor oil companies… sob! sob! (SOBs)
January 30th, 2006 at 3:17 pmJust like wwallace to show his homophobia.
January 30th, 2006 at 3:22 pmThat’s nice, I’m sure you have lots of STDs, too. And, btw, pulling out isn’t a reliable form of birth control. Loser.
Comment by ann — January 30, 2006 @ 3:12 pm
That just goes to show that partisan Republicans are born, not made. If you live long enough, you’ll come to your senses.
January 30th, 2006 at 3:25 pmActually, Spudge, the Texas references make me think it’s IRI not wallace.
January 30th, 2006 at 3:26 pm#85 Ben: Help me out here.
I know that a $70 barrel of oil costs about $2 to produce, once the site is located and the gear is in place.
I’ve always wondered, though — is $80/barrel the “breakeven” cost for oil shale? If so, it would have to sell against $140 crude to be equally proftable.
Just wonderin’. I’ve never found a source that explained whether $80 was “competitive” or just “barely doable.”
January 30th, 2006 at 3:27 pmIt really is worth pointing out that this isn’t the first time Exxon has posted record profits. In fact, it’s the THIRD CONSECUTIVE YEAR.
2002 - $11.5 billion
2003 - $21.5 billion
2004 - $25.3 billion
2005 - $36.1 billion
Think about that. Almost as much profit in the last three months of 2005 as all of 2002. I’d expect more of the same in 2006.
January 30th, 2006 at 3:28 pmG. Gordon Giddy,
Not enough racial slurs to be I-RIGHT-I. His posts are too short also.
January 30th, 2006 at 3:30 pmH3 = Jeep Liberty = Pansy hahahaha
January 30th, 2006 at 3:30 pmHow are fines unconstitutional? Are they saying that a $500 parking fine is unconstitutional?
That’s just silly sweetie - who believes this nonsense anyway?
Comment by RightPunch
Punitive damages are not a fine and shouldn’t be equated to a parking ticket. How ridiculous. Read the opinion.
January 30th, 2006 at 3:30 pmSo if they’re not parking tickets are they un- Constitutional? Does the Constitution define reasonable?
January 30th, 2006 at 3:35 pma funny thing about IRI:
from Sundya NY Times:
IRI = Democracy Spreader
January 30th, 2006 at 3:35 pmPunitive damages are not unconstitutional, excessive damages are. Read the opinion.
January 30th, 2006 at 3:39 pmLove that spin.
Exxon is calling it excessive punitive damages.
January 30th, 2006 at 3:41 pmNo, the supreme court has:
Two critical Supreme Court opinions, decided after the
January 30th, 2006 at 3:45 pmdistrict court’s decision in this case, have expanded the way
courts review constitutional challenges to large punitive damage
awards. In 1996, the Court decided BMW of North America,
Inc. v. Gore and articulated, for the first time, factors that
courts must consider when conducting a substantive review of
a jury’s punitive damages award.103 In BMW, a jury awarded
the plaintiff $4,000 in compensatory damages and $4 million
in punitive damages for the defendant’s fraudulent conduct.
The Court held that the amount of the punitive damage award
was unconstitutional because the defendant lacked fair notice
that such a severe award would be imposed.
Ratio analysis as required by BMW helps avoid overdeterrence.
January 30th, 2006 at 3:45 pmJustice Breyer’s concurrence in BMW notes that
“[s]maller damages would not sufficiently discourage firms
from engaging in the harmful conduct, while larger damages
would over-deter by leading potential defendants to spend
more to prevent the activity that causes the economic harm,
say, through employee training, than the cost of the harm
itself.”
So are you blaming the 9th now? That’s why you have Alito now isn’t it Federalist breath?
January 30th, 2006 at 3:46 pm[…] I wish I could make that kinda cash. Of course, I don’t wish that I was an unjust self-centered corporation. Check out ExxposeExxon.com for more info. (via ThinkProgress) global+warmingoilexxon+mobileexxonevilvaldez […]
January 30th, 2006 at 3:46 pmIn BMW, the Supreme Court held that a punitive damage award violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because it was so grossly excessive that the
January 30th, 2006 at 3:47 pmdefendant lacked fair notice that it would be imposed.
I think the problem here is that America seems to be suffering from a major case of ignorance. I suggest people read journal essays on the true fact that we are running out of oil, globally, after all only so much petroleum was created out of the organic decay in the cretaceous and jurassic period. Big oil, as well as every major corporation in the US and abroad have and will always control legislation in this country. I say we petition our congressmen to en lobbying, to make it illegal, after all such practices are what hinders America from being a real democracy, among other disgusting practices. Unless our congressmen are amongst the greediest individuals of our nation, at a 400 thousand dollar a year salary, which continues for life even after they retire from politics (which is another abuse that has to be eradicated), they should ackowledge a finilization of citizen abuses.
January 30th, 2006 at 3:49 pmI hope both democrats and republicans alike, which i consider to be equally worthy human beings, and equally caring American citizens realize the problem of lobbying by corporations and special interest groups. After all, representatives and senators should listen only to the franchise.
Ratio analysis as required by BMW helps avoid overdeterrence.
Justice Breyer’s concurrence in BMW notes that
“[s]maller damages would not sufficiently discourage firms
from engaging in the harmful conduct, while larger damages
would over-deter by leading potential defendants to spend
more to prevent the activity that causes the economic harm,
say, through employee training, than the cost of the harm
itself.†Comment by Steed Lankershim — January 30, 2006 @ 3:45 pm
How about posting the link to Breyer’s concurrance so we can judge his words for ourselves - because Bush-lovin’ trolls often will just make stuff up, y’know?
January 30th, 2006 at 3:52 pmYeah Steed, we get it. You believe in the free market fairy and the tort sprite, too.
January 30th, 2006 at 3:53 pmFair notice for imposition, we’re not the charges brought by the government explained with the penalties for a guilty verdict? How can excess be related to notification?
January 30th, 2006 at 3:53 pmBMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore 1996
The Exxon 9th Circuit case is no. 97-35192
January 30th, 2006 at 3:55 pmRehquist, Scalia, Thomas were/are pimples on the ass of jurisprudence. Stewed Cankersore is like a bloody hemorrhoid on that ass.
January 30th, 2006 at 3:56 pmGo practice some law, Stewed. You are a pro bono lobbyist. A fifth wheel on a unicycle.
January 30th, 2006 at 3:57 pmEnvironmentalists are the cause of insufficient refining capacity? I don’t think so.
“The oil industry and its allies would have the public believe that insufficient refining
capacity, restrictive environmental standards, growing gasoline demand and OPEC
production cutbacks are the primary reasons for the current oil and gas supply problem.
However, the record shows — supported by documents I have obtained — that there is more to
the story. Specifically, the documents suggest that major oil companies pursued efforts to
curtail refinery capacity as a strategy for improving profit margins; that competing oil
companies worked together to subvert supply; that refinery closures inhibited supply; and
that oil companies are reaping record profits, yet may benefit from a proposed national
energy policy that would offer financial incentives to expand refinery capacity.”
from an investigative report presented
by Senator Ron Wyden
June 14, 2001
http://72.14.203.104/ search?q=cache:lBQo44REtQ0J:wyden.senate.gov/ leg_issues/ reports/ wyden_oil_report.pdf+oil+refinery+capacity&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=9
January 30th, 2006 at 3:59 pmI think he brings up a great argument. If I follow where he is going this could be a major set back for jury awards if his logic is to be followed. Get an uber- originalist gang of 4 at the Supreme court and get a bare bones stripped down vote, no remedy, just negate federal punitive damges all together using the 14th amdendment. Right?
January 30th, 2006 at 4:01 pmBusiness uber alles!
January 30th, 2006 at 4:16 pmIsn’t this all so ironic? How many people voluntarily drive 65 mph on the highway/interstate? How many have curbed their driving habits? If you are like me who have, how many pickup trucks, SUV’s, and other cars zoom right past you, sometimes flipping you off because you’re driving too slow?
In my opinion, I find it a sad testament that American’s cannot be independently responsible enough to slow down, at the very least. Why is it that we need to have government tell us to slow down (which I think they should, because we’re not doing it)? Coming to a gas station near you, we will be rationing before too long.
Even GM and Ford couldn’t see the writing on the wall. They continued to make gas guzzlers because they had been ’selling so well’. So how many people who are on the fringe between middle income to the lower income class who have these megavehicles that won’t be able to fill them, let alone pay for them, sell them off, or trade them off at a decent value?
And petroleum isn’t just about gas, though it’s the most recognized. Our pharmaceuticals, clothes, and product packaging is all derived from petroleum.
I think the reason we haven’t seen more of an impact (like the late 70’s) is because of our love of credit. In not too distant of future, when the majority of Americans have maxed their credit cards, then the economy will come to a fast halt.
Hold on, we’re in for a very bumpy ride. Thanks Bush.
January 30th, 2006 at 4:17 pm#91 Just wonderin’. I’ve never found a source that explained whether $80 was “competitive†or just “barely doable.â€
Comment by RunningDogLackey — January 30, 2006 @ 3:27 pm
I tried to find an answer but I could not find a real satisfactory one. I got plenty of hits though using “shale oil $80″. Just ran out of time> I may research later in the evening. If I find something worthwhile I will post it.
January 30th, 2006 at 4:18 pmThat should actually be Big Business Uber Alles because if Wal-Mart proves anything it’s that small businesses are getting the shaft.
January 30th, 2006 at 4:20 pmThis is such the era of NOT SINCE isn’t it? Not since Lincoln, Nixon, Adams, Bart Simpson.
January 30th, 2006 at 4:23 pmNot sure about how this relates, Ben and Running Dog, but Oil Sand in Alberta, Canada used to not be cost effective to extract the oil from, but that has changed.
January 30th, 2006 at 4:24 pmLisa,
From my observation, it is the lower income folks who drive Suburbans, etc. I just moved to Lake Forest a very well to do town and I only see a few giant SUVs now. I moved from Orange, where every other car was a giant Escalade or something like that.
I think that because these people can’t afford to buy a house, they invest everything in a “look at me car.” Of course, they all have spinner rims and leather interiors, etc. I am sure their cars are nicer than their homes. In fact, I would put money on it.
January 30th, 2006 at 4:24 pmYou can always check Wiki, there are external links there as well…
Oil Shale
Related article about Oil company profits from the WaPo last year.
Sierra Club of Canada on the oil sands mining.
Oil Sands Strategy a Comprehensive Abdication of Government’s Environmental Responsibilities
(Edmonton and Ottawa) - Alberta’s proposed Mineable Oil Sands Strategy represents a comprehensive abdication of the provincial government’s responsibility to protect the environment and sustain the health of northern Alberta communities says the Sierra Club of Canada.
“Roughly 2500 square kilometers of Alberta’s boreal forest will be obliterated, and air and water pollution and greenhouse gas emissions will increase dramatically, despite the Strategy’s happy talk about reclamation and intergenerational equity†says Stephen Hazell, conservation director of the Sierra Club of Canada. “The real purpose of the Strategy appears to be to create a regulation-free zone to give the companies the freest hand to increase oil production from the tar sands as quickly as possible.â€
“We looked into this document hoping a positive direction would be set for the region, a direction that would see clean water, clean air and healthy communities come first. Albertans must understand that tar sands mining is one of the most environmentally destructive industries on the planet. It will have many impacts both within and outside Alberta†said Lindsay Telfer, director of the Prairie chapter of Sierra Club of Canada. “One wonders how long Prime Minister Paul Martin will remain silent as growing air and water pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the oil sands solidifies Canada’s international reputation as the tar nation.â€
(…)
Home > Media > News Releases
Sierra Club of Canada News Release
Thursday, October 27, 2005
Oil Sands Strategy a Comprehensive Abdication of Government’s Environmental Responsibilities
(Edmonton and Ottawa) - Alberta’s proposed Mineable Oil Sands Strategy represents a comprehensive abdication of the provincial government’s responsibility to protect the environment and sustain the health of northern Alberta communities says the Sierra Club of Canada.
“Roughly 2500 square kilometers of Alberta’s boreal forest will be obliterated, and air and water pollution and greenhouse gas emissions will increase dramatically, despite the Strategy’s happy talk about reclamation and intergenerational equity†says Stephen Hazell, conservation director of the Sierra Club of Canada. “The real purpose of the Strategy appears to be to create a regulation-free zone to give the companies the freest hand to increase oil production from the tar sands as quickly as possible.â€
“We looked into this document hoping a positive direction would be set for the region, a direction that would see clean water, clean air and healthy communities come first. Albertans must understand that tar sands mining is one of the most environmentally destructive industries on the planet. It will have many impacts both within and outside Alberta†said Lindsay Telfer, director of the Prairie chapter of Sierra Club of Canada. “One wonders how long Prime Minister Paul Martin will remain silent as growing air and water pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the oil sands solidifies Canada’s international reputation as the tar nation.â€
(…)
Tar sands oil produces roughly twice as much greenhouse gases per barrel of oil as conventionally produced oil, destroys boreal forest and wetlands, and produces massive tailings that contribute to substantial air and water pollution. Sierra Club of Canada is asking Canadians and Americans to sign the Mackenzie WILD Declaration in order to constrain the unsustainable growth of the tar sands industry as well as protect Mackenzie Valley wilderness. Read more about the Mackenzie WILD campaign at http://www.mackenzieWILD.ca.
January 30th, 2006 at 4:41 pmWalmart is now bigger (gross income, not profits) than Exxon Mobil, and they have been moving into gasoline retailing as they did into groceries. If they get a good grip on gasoline retailing, watch out, because they change the whole supplier/retailer relationship.
January 30th, 2006 at 4:43 pmBMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore 1996
The Exxon 9th Circuit case is no. 97-35192
Comment by Steed Lankershim
Let’s not forget that to these “judicial extremists” from the Ministry of FedSoc, the Ninth Circuit is filled with the “liberal judicial activists” appointees that legislate from the bench. LMAO!
January 30th, 2006 at 5:08 pmYeah, Tony Perkins is on CSPAN right now , he has already commented using the words 210 years ago. This is where they are headed folks, orginialists to the nth degree. The means will always justify the end. I guess Screed from the other shore had to go home , maybe he’ll come back later to continue his defense of poor little Exxon/Mobil.
January 30th, 2006 at 6:12 pm“In BMW, the Supreme Court held that a punitive damage award violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because it was so grossly excessive that the
defendant lacked fair notice that it would be imposed.
Comment by Steed Lankershim — January 30, 2006 @ 3:47 pm”
Steed, pumpkin, I can see that Partisan brain of yours is working overtime to fabricate an argument that is not based in facts. Did you actually read the ruling? The argument that a punitive award shouldn’t be overly excessive - not that a punitive award is illegal. When a company makes 36 billion in profits in a single year, then 5 billion in punitive damages isn’t excessive. Compare this to the hundreds of billions of dollars from the tobacco companies, and you don’t have an argument at all.
Sweetie, I know you are partisan on this, but you might try re-reading and pretending you’re representing the other side. It might help the rational part of your brain to function, instead of the silly emotional one that answered this question.
Don’t worry, I forgive you. It’s clear you believe strongly you’re doing the right thing, so it’s more of a problem of brain dysfunction than intentional lies on your part I’m sure. Can you try harder next time though, I know you have it in you there big guy!
January 30th, 2006 at 7:11 pm” by leading potential defendants to spend
more to prevent the activity that causes the economic harm,
say, through employee training, than the cost of the harm
itself. Steed Lankershim”
I’ll give you a hint there sweetie, do you believe that Exxon spent 5 billion dollars in training boat pilots to not get drunk and run into reefs? If not, then clearly this damage is not unconstitutional - as that was the measure you yourself quoted as the determining factor.
So honey, just don’t react so emotionally, and ‘think’ through instead of ‘feel’ through this. It might help your reading comprehension big guy.
January 30th, 2006 at 7:14 pmPunch,
You haven’t read my posts very carefully.
#98 Punitive damages are not unconstitutional, excessive damages are.
And this quote is from Justice Breyer, not me. Pay attention.
“[s]maller damages would not sufficiently discourage firms
from engaging in the harmful conduct, while larger damages
would over-deter by leading potential defendants to spend
more to prevent the activity that causes the economic harm,
say, through employee training, than the cost of the harm
itself.”
Finally, Captain Hazelwood, although he was an alcoholic and negligent, was aquitted of being drunk while he was in charge of the Valdez. But the facts won’t prevent you from smearing the man.
January 30th, 2006 at 7:46 pmThe OIL profits ARE obscene!
WHO create the oil demands that lead to these OBSCENE PROFITS?
AUTOMOBILE DRIVERS?
You and me?
January 30th, 2006 at 7:54 pm“#98 Punitive damages are not unconstitutional, excessive damages are. Steed Lankershim”
But sweetie, it’s you who haven’t read carefully, because the case you cite set the definition for what excessive is - and the numbers don’t add up. But adding numbers requires the reasoning centers, not the emotional centers, so that would explain why the math eludes you pumpkin.
Besides, if you had done better research, you would realize that the constitutionality is not the grounds Exxon is suing on - they’re suing because:
“Exxon’s company position is that no punitive damages are justified because the spill was an accident.”
“Finally, Captain Hazelwood, although he was an alcoholic and negligent, was aquitted of being drunk while he was in charge of the Valdez. But the facts won’t prevent you from smearing the man.
Comment by Steed Lankershim”
Oh but pumpkin, we all know that a partisan brain like yours is incapable of handling facts:
Joseph Hazelwood’s urine sample, taken more than 10 hours after the spill, was a whopping 0.10% blood alcohol level.
The evidence says he was drunk, acquital at trials can occur for various reasons, often unrelated to the facts pumpkin ;)
January 30th, 2006 at 8:09 pmAnd Steed, you might also consider ‘this’ fact:
“He admitted drinking before boarding the ship but argued he was not drunk, and an Alaska jury agreed. Steed Lankershim”
Clearly he had a pro-oil republican jury. He admits to drinking and driving, has a blood alcohol level that could marinate beef, and the jury acquits him.
See what a partisan brain does for people? It lets them ignore facts, disregard reality, and think that talking donkeys are real, the earth is flat, and captains who admit to drinking and driving with ‘drunk’ blood alcohol level are innocent.
It’s OK sweetie, we know being a partisan is a compulsion, and reality is not permitted to enter. I forgive you for your blindness.
January 30th, 2006 at 8:15 pm“Exxon’s company position is that no punitive damages are justified because the spill was an accident.â€
False. You haven’t read the case.
Exxon isn’t suing anybody. The plaintiffs are re-appealing their case for the 2nd or 3rd time. I think it’s the 3rd. The 9th circuit cites two cases that address excessive damages, I didn’t cite them. Their opinion in Nov 2001 calculates the $25 million plus $100 million. Their numbers do add up. Read the opinion.
And Hazelwood’s alcohol level from blood sample at 9.5 hours after the accident. was %0.062. The coast guard operator had a alcohol level that night. The state only had circumstantial evidence and could not prove without a doubt that he was drunk.
Where are your sources? One of those left wing websites? Why not provide them? Oh, that’s right. You never do. Another case of making shit up. When an argument doesn’t go your way blame it on republicans.
January 30th, 2006 at 9:10 pmcorrection…
January 30th, 2006 at 9:11 pmcoast guard operator had a higher alcohol level that night.
and yet they are in court because they dont want to pay $5Billion for their valdeez mess.
via: http://rising-hegemon.blogspot.com/
January 30th, 2006 at 9:17 pmThe oil men (friends of the White House) dissed the Senate. Bush exhibits total contempt for Congress and they take his lead.
January 30th, 2006 at 9:40 pmhttp://news.yahoo.com/ s/ nm/ energy_congress_gasoline_dc
Is Steed still under the impression that anybody here gives a crap what the hell he has to say. We don’t agree with you moron. They should pay their god damn money and STFU. There isn’t one person here who has sympathy for a company that is raping the American people. Stupid.
January 30th, 2006 at 9:41 pmFrom the opinion of Judge Kleinfeld(1997):
January 30th, 2006 at 10:11 pmThis is an apeal of a $5 billion punitive damages award arising out of the Exxon Valdez oil spill. This is not a case of befouling the environment.This is a case about commercial fishing.The jury was specifically instructed that it could not award damages for environmental harm.The reason is that under a stipulation with the United States and Alaska,Exxon had already been punished for environmental harm.The verdict in this case was for damage to economic expectations for commercial fishermen.
The plaintiffs here were almost entirely compensated for their damages years ago.The punitive damages at issue were awarded to punish Exxon…..are whether punitive damages should have been barred as a matter of law and whether the award was excessive.
“…a hands off appellate deference to juries typical of other kinds of cases and issues,is unconstitutional for punitive damages awards.”(p45)
“BMW..established three guideposts to use in determining whether a punitive damage award is grossly excessive..”(p46)
“we remand for the district court to consider the constitutionality…of the award in light of the guideposts…”(p49)
THE OIL CARTELS ARE SWINE!
The CEOs of BIG OIL are the greediest bastards on the planet!
January 30th, 2006 at 10:51 pmLeave the alcohol level of the captain out of it. Negligence is enough and he was negligent. He should have had his Captains cert. pulled years ago. If he was sober at the time his actions and behaviors were enough to find him negligent and incompetent. As far as MADD is concerned you should know that they are neo-prohibitionists. I wouldn’t trust a word that comes from any of them. Yes. They want to prohibit all alcohol again. A couple of years ago I read a newspaper article about one of the women who was high up in the MADD hierarchy admitting that she was a teetotaler and that she was against drinking for any reason. She said MADD was just the start to bringing the country to the point where it would accept prohibition again. I thought this would be big news, but I didn’t hear it mentioned anywhere else. The Prohibition party is the oldest third party in America. It’s older than the Progressive party. Candy Lightner founded MADD:
Candy Lynne Lightner (born May 30, 1946), was the organizer and founding president of Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD). In 1980, Ms. Lightner’s 13-year-old daughter, Cari, was killed by a drunken hit-and-run driver as she walked down a suburban street in California. “I promised myself on the day of Cari’s death that I would fight to make this needless homicide count for something positive in the years ahead†Candy Lightner later wrote.
The leniency of the sentence given to the repeat offender of driving while intoxicated (DWI) outraged Ms. Lightner who then organized Mothers Against Drunk Drivers. The name was later changed to Mothers Against Drunk Driving. The object of her organization was to raise public awareness of the serious nature of drunken driving and to promote tough legislation against the crime.
Candy Lightner appeared on major television shows, spoke before the US Congress, addressed professional and business groups, and worked tirelessly for years to change public attitudes, modify judicial behavior, and promote tough new legislation.
With the passage of time, MADD decided to eliminate all driving after drinking any amount of alcoholic beverage. Ms. Lightner disagreed with this focus and asserted that “police ought to be concentrating their resources on arresting drunk drivers—not those drivers who happen to have been drinking. I worry that the movement I helped create has lost direction.â€
Ms. Lightner left MADD and disagrees with its change in goals. “It has become far more neo-prohibitionist than I ever wanted or envisioned,” she says. “I didn’t start MADD to deal with alcohol. I started MADD to deal with the issue of drunk driving.”
Candy Lightner is a recipient of the Presidents Volunteer Action Award, an honorary doctorate in humanities and public service, and was the subject of a made-for-television movie, “Mothers Against Drunk Drivers: the Candy Lightner story.” She is the author of “Appalling to capitalize on innocents’ deaths,†Wall Street Journal, June 12, 1991, and co-author (with Nancy Hathaway) of Giving Sorrow Words. NY: Warner books, 1990 and “The other side of sorrow,†Ladies Home Journal, September 1991, 107(9), 150.
The thing to remember here is that this is the Ninth Circuit. Supposedly the most “liberal” in the land. Bullshit. There isn’t even a true progressive/liberal on the SCOTUS.
January 30th, 2006 at 11:18 pmThe Founder of MADD agrees with me, that’s why she left MADD and is a lobbyist for the liquor industry now as you can see from her own words above. My opinion? Alcohol is far worse than weed, but prohibition is worse than heroin.
January 30th, 2006 at 11:21 pmPunch, you should rethink using wiki. It’s not reliable and was completely wrong in this case. As for your statement:
has a blood alcohol level that could marinate beef
was ridiculous, but your ego won’t allow you to admit that everything you’ve posted is completely false. My sources were the opinions of the 9th Circuit which cited the Supreme Court and Justice Breyer. I gave you the case number but you refused to read it. It was so much easier to read a couple of paragraphs on wiki, wasn’t it?
http://www.adn.com/evos/stories/EV63.html
Assistant Attorney General Brent Cole, tackling the biggest case of his career, was more willing to admit weaknesses in the state’s $300,000plus prosecution.
“We knew that of the people we had interviewed nobody would say he was impaired. We felt that the physical evidence was a better determination of that than what people were going to say,” he said.
Juror Sage, a Carrs grocery manager whose sister died in a drunken driving accident several years ago, said the state’s evidence that Hazelwood was drunk made no sense.
Prosecutors relied on a bloodalcohol expert who used a process called “retrograde extrapolation” to calculate backward to midnight from the .061 result of Hazelwood’s 10:30 a.m. blood test. The expert, Richard Prouty, said Hazelwood would have had a blood alcohol count of at least .14 at the time of the grounding. But he also said the blood alcohol concentration at the time of grounding could have been much higher, perhaps as much as .37.
Defense experts said Prouty’s backcalculation process is useless after more than a couple of hours. It had never been used to estimate an alcohol concentration 11 hours before a test.
Sage said the Anchorage jury didn’t want to be the first to convict a person on such speculative grounds.
“I don’t think any juror wanted to stick their neck out that far,” Sage said.
“If Captain Hazelwood is an average Joe . . . he’s going to be practically dead,” Sage said. “He would have had to have 25 to 30 drinks.”
At most, witnesses placed five drinks in Hazelwood’s hand. But, according to the state’s own analysis, Hazelwood would have been dead drunk when the Exxon Valdez put to sea.
“Captain Hazelwood would have had to crawl back to his ship,” while witnesses testified he looked sober “and his commands were clear and concise throughout,” Sage said.
Jurors were not told that Hazelwood had a history of drunken driving convictions and had spent time at an alcohol rehabilitation clinic. And although the .061 blood alcohol concentration exceeded federal standards for operating a vessel, Hazelwood was tried under Alaska laws, which provide more leeway.
January 31st, 2006 at 1:02 amClearly he had a pro-oil republican jury. RightPunch.
Here’s your “Republican” jury Punchie. You should read The Paranoid Style in American Politics, By Richard Hofstadter. You are clearly paranoid. PLH.
http://www.adn.com/evos/stories/EV342.html
ANCHORAGE- Twelve jurors were picked from a pool of more than 60 potential jurors who were questioned in early May during a process called voir dire. After the candidates filled out a questionnaire, attorneys on both sides asked how they felt about alcohol abuse, large corporations and large punitive damage awards, and how much they knew about the 1989 spill and Capt. Joe Hazelwood. One juror was dismissed for unknown reasons halfway through the trial. Ages are estimated on appearance, unless specific ages are given.
JENNIFER L. SMITH
AGE, HOMETOWN: 30s, Anchorage
OCCUPATION: Clerk, state court personnel department
DETAILS: Smith was living in Alaska and working as a trial clerk in the state court at the time of the spill. She said she had no strong opinions about Hazelwood, “other than I know he was involved. He was the captain and he was not on the bridge at the time it happened.” When she was asked if she could be fair, she said, “There is no doubt in my mind.”
LINDA L. HOOD
AGE, HOMETOWN: 40s, Anchorage
OCCUPATION: Clerk, Providence Hospital
DETAILS: Hood, born in Anchorage, was a former flight attendant for Wien Air Alaska. She likes reading John Grisham novels. Her husband is a Teamster, and she has a daughter who is studying at the University of Oregon. “I have no strong feelings about the oil industry,” she said.
ROSE MARTIN
AGE, HOMETOWN: 34, Anchorage
OCCUPATION: Homemaker, school volunteer
DETAILS: Martin moved to Alaska from South Carolina shortly after the spill. Her husband is in the Air Force and scheduled to be transferred in 1995. They have two children, ages 7 and 12. Martin sat through the first three months of the trial; then, as the jury deliberated what to award the fishermen in actual damages, she was dismissed from the panel. The reason for her dismissal is contained in a sealed court document.
BRUCE A. DEAN
AGE, HOMETOWN: 42, Wasilla
OCCUPATION: Unemployed miner
DETAILS: Dean, in the mining business for 20 years in Colorado and Utah, moved to Alaska about eight years ago. Asked what he liked about his work, he said, “I like to blow stuff up.” In 1989, he worked for Martech on the oil-spill cleanup. He said he has no views on the oil industry but has had some “go arounds” with environmental regulators. Exxon attorneys wanted to know why he wrote “BAD” on the jury form next to questions about the oil industry. He responded, “It is my initials.”
NANCY L. PROVOST
AGE, HOMETOWN: 60s, Wasilla
OCCUPATION: Retired factory worker
DETAILS: Provost is a widow who moved to Alaska two years ago to live with her daughter. Until then, she lived in Indiana and Kentucky and was a factory worker and nurse’s aide. She likes to read Agatha Christie mysteries. During voir dire, she said, “I’ve had doubts: Am I smart enough to do this?”
DOUGLAS A. GRAHAM
AGE, HOMETOWN: 34, Anchorage
OCCUPATION: Unemployed
DETAILS: Graham moved from Arizona to Anchorage 18 years ago with his family. He has relatives who worked on the spill cleanup. His mother is asthmatic, and currently he cares for her. During voir dire, he said, “I don’t always believe everything I read in the newspapers.”
KATHERINE J. MOOR
AGE, HOMETOWN: 67, Wasilla
OCCUPATION: Bookkeeper
DETAILS: Moor has lived in Alaska more than 40 years and has six children. She has held a variety of accounting jobs, including working for Rural Alaska and the Mat-Su Borough. In the 1970s, her husband worked for the United Nations and they lived in Pakistan for three years. She said members of her family have had some problems with alcohol and she had been involved in a couple of lawsuits, but she did not understand what punitive damages were.
JEWEL SPANN
AGE, HOMETOWN: 55, Kenai
OCCUPATION: Fast-food restaurant worker
DETAILS: Spann lived in Alaska from 1969 to 1973, moved to Arizona, then returned to Alaska in the mid-1980s. She enjoys fishing and gardening and was working at McDonald’s at the start of the trial. She has family members who have worked in the oil industry.
RITA C. WILSON
AGE, HOMETOWN: 30s, Anchorage
OCCUPATION: Secretary, Sand Lake Elementary School
DETAILS: Wilson has lived in Anchorage since age 11. She said she doesn’t read the newspapers, she only does the crossword puzzles. She said that the 1989 spill did not affect her life and that “it was supposedly hard on our oceans and some of our friends got greedy, it changed their personalities.”
JANETTE L. GARRISON
AGE, HOMETOWN: 46, Palmer
OCCUPATION: Custodian
DETAILS: Garrison moved to Alaska in 1982. Her husband was a setnet fisherman in 1985 and 1986. She said the only thing she knew about the spill is that “the ship hit Bligh Reef. Somebody didn’t turn it.” Exxon attorneys didn’t want her on the jury because they feared she might have a bias against Hazelwood. Judge Holland said, “I think this is a fair-minded lady.”
MARGARET L. JOHNSON
AGE, HOMETOWN: 46, Anchorage
OCCUPATION: Custodian, Anchorage School District
DETAILS: When Johnson came to Alaska in 1969, she worked for a fish processor. She said she doesn’t read the newspapers, so after some time she didn’t give the spill much thought. “Nobody got hurt so I didn’t think more about it.” She likes sports fishing.
KEN S. MURRAY
AGE, HOMETOWN: 42, Anchorage
OCCUPATION: Unemployed college counselor
DETAILS: Murray grew up in Arkansas and moved to Alaska in 1990 from Memphis, Tenn. His wife is a school teacher; he was a counselor at the private Alaska Junior College until he was laid off. He is a member of the Rotary. He said his knowledge of the facts about the grounding were “a little shady right now.” His fellow jurors picked him as their foreman.
January 31st, 2006 at 1:19 amGordon,
I’m not a prohibitionists, I love a goo