ANCHORAGE — Mike Lytle, a third-generation fisherman from the coastal village of Cordova, said many residents there were walking around stunned, shaking their heads.
A lot of people he knows were planning their retirements with the $2.5 billion in punitive damages that Exxon Mobil Corp. was expected to pay the nearly 33,000 victims of the worst oil spill in U.S. history.
But the Supreme Court dashed their hopes Wednesday, deciding to cut the punitive damages for the 1989 Exxon Valdez disaster to $507.5 million. That translates to an average of $15,000 per victim.
"I always felt that big oil was going to win," said Lytle, 56. "But now I found out what true meaning of punitive damages is: puny."
A jury decided in 1994 that Exxon should pay $5 billion in punitive damages. In 2006, a federal appeals court cut that verdict in half.
Wednesday's decision to reduce the amount to one equal to about four days worth of Exxon Mobil's last quarter profits was hailed by the business community and decried by environmentalists and Alaskans.
"This turns America's resources to the oil industry and only the U.S. Congress can do something about it," said Jim Ayers, vice president of the advocacy group Oceana. "If the Congress doesn't act, this means that America's resources, including our marine life, are now in serious jeopardy and can be bought and destroyed for a mere pittance."
Justice David Souter wrote for the court that punitive damages may not exceed what the company already paid to compensate victims for economic losses, or $507.5 million.
The 5-3 ruling, which reduced the amount owed by 80 percent, comes almost two decades after the Exxon Valdez supertanker ran aground, spurting 11 million gallons of crude into the rich fishing waters of Prince William Sound that so many Cordova residents rely on for their livelihoods.
"I'm not too surprised," said Derek Blake, 25, who was a young child when he began fishing there with his father. "I thought we might get $1 billion, but it was always in the back of my head we could get nothing."
Robert J. Kopchak lost a quarter of his earnings when the Pacific herring fishery crashed in the early 1990s. Adding to his family's burden at the time, he still owed thousands of dollars on two herring permits that are worthless today.
"It really hurts," he said of Wednesday's ruling. "It gives big business the formula they need to calculate the cost of their actions when they destroy the environment. This gives them the formula to calculate their risk, period."
Sylvia Lange, also of Cordova, used to fish commercially for salmon and haul for the doomed herring fishery. But for her, the spill was about more than lost money.
It also was about the end of Alaska Native traditions and a subsistence lifestyle for several villages in the region. Because of the spill, many Alaska Natives were forced to stop harvesting seal, salmon and herring roe and move to urban areas, never to return, said Lange, who is part Aleut and Tlingit.
"A cultural link was definitely broken," she said.
The spill killed hundreds of thousands of birds and other marine animals, inflicting environmental injuries that have not fully recovered, according to numerous scientific studies.
Exxon Mobil maintained that many studies found the area healthy and thriving, countering findings of continuing damage. The company, which posted a $40.7 billion profit last year, had said punitive damages would be excessive punishment on top of the $3.4 billion in cleanup costs, compensatory payments and fines it already has paid.
"The Valdez oil spill was a tragic accident and one which the corporation deeply regrets," Irving, Texas-based Exxon Mobil said in a statement Wednesday. "We know this has been a very difficult time for everyone involved. We have worked hard over many years to address the impacts of the spill and to prevent such accidents from happening in our company again."
On the question of whether Exxon Mobil was liable for punitive damages at all, the court split 4-4, which leaves standing the appeals court opinion saying the company was liable. Justice Samuel Alito, who owns Exxon Mobil stock, took no part in the case.
First-quarter profits at Exxon Mobil were $10.9 billion. The company's 2007 profit was $40.6 billion.
___
Associated Press writer Pete Yost in Washington contributed to this report.
That ruling will SURELY provide an ECONOMIC DISINCENTIVE so they won't SPILL OIL all over my damn COAST.
So much for the "doppledingi-thingi"
I seeded this story from AOL but it looks like the AP, the Times, Reuters and brietbart beat me to it.
The original award for 5 billion was cut to 2.5 billion and now to 500 million. Maybe the Alaskans should pay Exxon a few million to reimburse them for the money they spent cleaning up the spill. After all, Exxon didn't mean to spill the oil, and it was the Alaskans that insisted their shores be cleaned up.
However, I suppose the people in Alaska, who's lives and business's where destroyed, can get by with $15,000. That should cover their energy cost for a year or two.
After reading more about this "second" Valdez disatar, that being this Surpreme Cour Ruling, I would like to retract my "tounge in cheek" comment about this very serious problem.
This is an outrage!, and now that the "Surpreme 9" have spoken, there is nothing anybody can do about it.
Can the oil companie be that powerful?!
Did they get to the Supreme Court Judges?!
A company with 40 Billion Dollars in one years profits....
can't and won't help American citizens whose lives they have destroyed?!
Yeah, I was going to seed it too -- clipping to Examples of the Justice System Gone Awry and my column.
Too bad there isn't a way to join duplicate seeds together so the votes all show on one seed.
I hope all Alaskans remember this when november comes when it comes to protecting the natural resources and the people of Alaska, the Republican Party are not to be trusted now they want to drill in ANWR . Alaska needs to send the Republican Party a Message and Vote Democratic for President. Because Change begins with and when the people get fed up.
proverbs 22:16 he that oppreseth the poor to increase his riches, and he that giveth to the rich, shall surely come to want
"I hope all Alaskans remember this when november comes ..... The Republican Party (is) not to be trusted now they want to drill in ANWR ..... Alaska needs to send the Republican Party a Message and Vote Democratic for President."
Note: The Governor of Alaska may be on the McCain's short list for VP ..... and she supports the drilling in Anwr.
Maybe this latest screwing by the friends of the GOP will wake them up!
I'll definitely be interested to see if this ruling results in poll movement.
It has to be one of the most disasterous decisions yet.
For anyone who has seen one of the post Valdez documentaries about the scale of the disaster to the fishing community, its almost got me speechless!
What are these @!$%#s gonna do next, order all the videos showing the destruction of the region and its environment removed, force the destroyed community to leave, remove their memories or just have the MSM rewrite history as if there was no oil spill.
We are now seeing the rights real agenda in full display at the court level.
For me, I would say that we need an FDR style approach where 5 more members of the court are added, all democratic, have them then call for investigation of the court, for the purpose of criminal investigation of the court's 2000 decision to elect Bush.
compassionate conservatives? Ha! Rich Rightwind Rulers for billionaires!
It certainly made me think of the power of corporations in our society, and I don't think power's the right word by itself: arrogance fits better.
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |