|
Industry critic pushes for Exxon payment Steiner files motion in federal court in Anchorage seeking to force the company to pay $92 million for unanticipated spill damage Wesley Loy For Petroleum News
An Alaska conservationist and oil industry critic is asking a federal judge to order ExxonMobil to pay an extra $92 million for the 1989 oil spill in Prince William Sound.
Rick Steiner filed an amicus curiae or “friend of the court” brief on Dec. 7 in U.S. District Court in Anchorage. He made the filing himself, without an attorney.
Steiner’s motion notes that the state and federal governments in 2006 asked ExxonMobil for the $92 million payment under a “reopener” clause in a civil settlement the company struck with the governments in 1991.
The settlement required ExxonMobil to pay $900 million for the spill of some 11 million gallons of Alaska North Slope crude oil from the wrecked tanker Exxon Valdez. The money was to be used for restoration purposes.
The reopener clause gave the governments an opportunity to later ask for up to an additional $100 million to address unanticipated effects on the environment or wildlife from the spill.
In demanding just over $92 million in 2006, Alaska’s attorney general at the time, David Marquez, said it was clear that populations and habitat had suffered “substantial and unanticipated injuries” from the spill.
To date, however, ExxonMobil has not paid the amount.
‘Stunning’ lack of recovery Steiner, in his seven-page brief, said that after four years, “it is evident that government parties do not intend to pursue collection of the demand.”
The governments could have, and should have, gone to court themselves to try to collect the money from ExxonMobil, but they haven’t, Steiner said. So he decided to approach the court himself.
Steiner, a former University of Alaska professor, argued that 21 years after the oil spill, many species such as killer whales and herring, as well as sediments and activities such as subsistence and commercial fishing, still are not listed as fully recovered.
“Such a stunning lack of ecological recovery could not have been anticipated at the time of settlement, nor could have the precise details of long-term ecological effects,” Steiner’s brief says. “There exist several cost-effective restoration options to assist in the recovery of these unanticipated injuries which should be funded with Reopener recoveries.”
Steiner long has been an oil industry critic and proponent of safer practices, traveling extensively around the world to address the subject of oil spills.
Payment still possible Craig Tillery, a deputy Alaska attorney general, told Petroleum News on Dec. 9 he had received a copy of Steiner’s motion but had not yet reviewed it.
From the standpoint of government officials, whether ExxonMobil will pay under the reopener is still up in the air, Tillery said.
“It has not been resolved,” he said. “There are still some issues surrounding the claim.”
In fact, some field work is planned regarding remediation of lingering oil. The question is whether anything can be done about residual or degrading oil that makes sense, Tillery said.
“Obviously, you don’t want to do anything that does more harm than good,” he said.
| 