Re: 'Yay For Big Oil' story of the day
rosskolnikov
location: Far end of the Group W bench
listening to: The Tony Rice Unit
registered: 2005.05.24
posts: 1822
[view all posts]
[view all posts]
A pretty one-sided account of things. It doesn't address whether or not the proposed $5 Billion settlement made any real sense. I've seen a lot of stories about destroyed livelihoods, but I also know a bunch of folks living in Alaska who note that the type of permanent destruction commonly cited is bunk. No one thinks Exxon ought not be liable in some way, but the question at hand is how much? That a relatively liberal justice like Souter wrote the opinion of the Supreme Court ought to tell you how weak was the arguement for $5 billion. Remember, that's on top of monies already paid.Exxon's current profits may look bad, but they aren't relevant to the Valdez payout.The authors "conclusion" paragraph trying to tie in drilling proposals in ANWAR is gratuitous and not very relevant given current vessel shipping standards.
–--
.:RS:.
.:RS:.
R
rosskolnikov
(view)
A pretty one-sided account of things. It doesn't address whether or not the proposed $5 Billion settlement made any real sense. I've seen a lot of stories about destroyed livelihoods, but I also know a bunch of folks living in Alaska who note that the type of permanent destruction commonly cited is bunk. No one thinks Exxon ought not be liable in some way, but the question at hand is how much? That a relatively liberal justice like Souter wrote the opinion of the Supreme Court ought to tell you how weak was the arguement for $5 billion. Remember, that's on top of monies already paid.Exxon's current profits may look bad, but they aren't relevant to the Valdez payout.The authors "conclusion" paragraph trying to tie in drilling proposals in ANWAR is gratuitous and not very relevant given current vessel shipping standards.
–--
.:RS:.
.:RS:.
