BREAKING NEWS - Survivors of the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill

BREAKING NEWS: Exxon's Statement and Our Response

The Exxon Corporation, sensing the political momentum against the Exxon-Mobil merger because of the company's mishandling of the Valdez disaster, issued a statement on March 5, 1999. Below is Exxon's statement, with our response.

Exxon Statement of March 5, 1999	The Truth
The Exxon Mobil merger is a completely separate and totally unrelated item that will be reviewed on its merits by appropriate government agencies in the United States and abroad to assure that it meets competitive standards.	As with people, we measure corporations by the content of their character. Exxon's failure for the past 10 years to own up to its misconduct in spilling 11 million gallons of oil from the Exxon Valdez into Prince William Sound demonstrates serious flaws in its corporate character. Until Exxon pays the damages to fisherpeople and Native Alaskans that a Federal jury found warranted by the company's recklessness, our government regulators should not allow Exxon to merge with Mobil, and pass along the defects in Exxon's corporate character to what would become the world's largest industrial enterprise.
The appeals process has not delayed in any way payments for the damages caused by the spill.	At trial, Exxon's chief executive testified that "it's the jury's decision to make," as to the amount of punitive damages to award. The jury verdict was entered on September 16, 1994, and Exxon still has the case tied up in court. Exxon has delayed paying the $5 billion dollar jury award for four years, and it continues to wage a litigation battle against fisherpeople and Natives.
We are sympathetic to those who were damaged by the spill, and took responsibility for assuring they have received full compensation for their actual damages.	As the federal judge in the Exxon Valdez trial stated: "[F]rom the testimony of Exxon executives, the jury could have inferred a lack of remorse." Moreover, Exxon has waged a vicious public relations and litigation battle against us. We have not been fully compensated, and continue to suffer economically and emotionally. At the 1994 civil trial, Exxon's chief executive acknowledged that he did not know the name of a single victim of the spill. To this day, Exxon has refused to discuss settlement and has made no outreach to us of any kind. Exxon has been spiteful, not sympathetic, to Alaskans. Reflecting the sensibilities of Alaskans, and indeed all Americans, Congress in 1990 barred the Exxon Valdez from ever returning to Prince William Sound. Exxon has filed lawsuits in an effort to put the Valdez back in the Sound, a deliberate provocation to spill victims.
Exxon voluntarily paid more than $300 million immediately after the spill to more than 11,000 people and businesses.	We victims have suffered damages of about $2.4 billion. The money Exxon has paid so far is a tiny fraction of the the damages we sustained. Exxon terminated its claims program early on, and had hundreds of lawyers working on defeating our claims. Exxon succeeded in beating many of our friends and neighbors down, unfortunately -- only adding to our communities' economic and emotional pain. Of the money Exxon has paid, little has come out of the company's own pockets. Exxon has palmed off most of its payments on taxpayers (in the form of Exxon tax write-offs), Lloyd's of London (Exxon's insurer), and other oil companies (including more socially responsible institutions such as BP and Arco). Indeed, when BP and Arco recommended that the Alyeska pipeline consortium pay $98 million to us victims, Exxon objected.
The federal court in Anchorage found that virtually all claims for actual damages had already been fully paid.	No such finding exists. Further, Exxon fought to have dismissed most of the actual damage claims resulting from the spill and was in part successful. It stiffed most claimants.
In the small fishing village of Cordova, Exxon paid more than $113 million to people in that community immediately after the spill. Of that total, close to $80 million was paid to Cordovans for their work on the cleanup and for hiring their boats. Another $25.6 million was paid directly to Cordovans for their lost income.	Again, the $25.6 million paid to Prince William Sound fishermen and women was a tiny fraction of the damages suffered. And most of the money spent on spill cleanup went out of the state of Alaska. Because of Exxon's continued mishandling of the Valdez oil spill, the American economic boom of the 1990s has passed us by.
We are appealing the $5 billion punitive damage verdict because we believe it is unjust and excessive.	Exxon, having told the jurors it was their decision to make as to whether punitive damages were appropriate, is now seeking to avoid the natural legal result of creating the largest oil spill in American history. It is a fine that hurts, as it should.
Our appeal is intended to have the award overturned, not to delay further payments.	For Exxon, delay pays. Business Week reports: "The settlement funds are not in escrow but available to Exxon through a $6.75 billion line of credit. The company's publicly stated return on average capital employed ranged from 11.2% to 16.5% since 1994. So, using the lower figure, between 1996, when the verdict was upheld, and yearend 2000, Exxon could turn $5.3 billion into $8.1 billion. Even with the 5% court-mandated interest accruing during appeals, that tops the judgment by $1 billion." The federal district court judge expressed fear that Exxon's delay tactics would harm us fisherpeople and Natives, as stated in his post-trial orders: "Given Exxon's inclination in this litigation to seek multiple reviews of the same issues, the court is concerned that the proposal could permit Exxon to defer payment of the judgment against it if affirmed...so long as some additional petition were pending before another court."
Important legal issues of fairness and precedent in this case must be reviewed and decided by appellate courts.	The federal district court judge described the case as follows: "The 11,000,000 gallon oil spill was the largest oil spill and greatest environmental disaster in American history. The spill disrupted the livelihoods of tens of thousands of people. This case simply does not compare to the numerous cases referenced by Exxon." * * * The judge made clear that our case against Exxon was a drunk driving case, pure and simple. "The jury heard evidence," the judge said, "that [Valdez captain Joseph] Hazelwood drank numerous times after treatment and that he was alcohol-impaired at the time of the grounding... "The jury also heard evidence that Exxon was aware that Hazelwood had relapsed but that Exxon failed adequately to monitor Hazelwood or to insure that his drinking would not interfere with his performance." * * * "The evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, was sufficient for the jury to conclude that Exxon was aware that a disastrous spill could occur and that Exxon's reckless actions increased those risks." * * * "The evidence established that with relatively small expense, when compared to the enormous risk, Exxon could have insured that its supertanker crews were rested and not captained by relapsed alcohol abusers." * * * "Certainly, the Exxon Valdez litigation, which concerns America's largest oil spill recklessly caused by one of the world's largest corporations involves a 'host of facts and circumstances unique to the particular case.'...The Exxon Valdez litigation simply does not compare to other punitive damage cases."
Exxon is exercising a fundamental right to appeal these punitive damages, a right to which every American individual and company is entitled. Requiring an individual or company to abandon this fundamental right would undermine the foundation of our civil justice system.	Many people and companies, when they have done wrong, accept their punishment and move on. They do not engage in lengthy delay tactics. A socially responsible institution makes amends to victims, it does not wage war against them. While Exxon speaks of its "rights," it should remember as well its privileges -- the privilege to conduct business under American law, which has generated tremendous profits for its shareholders and executives. Merging with Mobil to reassemble part of the old Standard Oil monopoly is also a privilege. There is nothing wrong, or unjust, about society demanding that Exxon cleanup its unfinished business with the people and environment of Alaska before it receives permission to merge with Mobil.

Next: The 40,000-plus spill victims vote to oppose Exxon-Mobil merger