|
Judge defers to governments, ExxonMobil Alaska industry watchdog Steiner denied in request for $92 million ‘reopener’ payment to address residual harm from 1989 oil spill Wesley Loy For Petroleum News
A federal judge has ruled it’s up to the state and federal governments, and not the court, to press a $92 million supplemental claim against ExxonMobil for the 1989 oil spill in Prince William Sound.
An oil industry critic and former university professor, Rick Steiner, in December sought permission to file an amicus curiae or “friend of the court” brief asking a judge to order ExxonMobil to pay the $92 million, which the state and federal governments had demanded directly of the company by letter in 2006.
Steiner said it was evident to him that the governments didn’t intend to pursue collection of the demand.
U.S. District Judge H. Russel Holland of Anchorage, who has presided over many years of arduous court activity resulting from the oil spill, denied Steiner’s motion.
In a five-page order issued March 7, Holland reasoned that because no party had filed a new claim in court, “there is neither an issue nor any cause of action as to which Professor Steiner could serve in an amicus curiae capacity.”
Disappointed The state and federal governments, as well as ExxonMobil, all opposed Steiner’s motion.
The governments jointly served ExxonMobil with a demand for $92,240,982 on Aug. 31, 2006.
They did so under a civil settlement, struck in 1991, that not only required ExxonMobil to pay $900 million for the spill, but left the company liable for a later claim of up to $100 million under a “reopener” clause.
The governments said their $92 million reopener claim would go toward addressing unanticipated wildlife and habitat injuries from the spill.
To date, however, ExxonMobil has not paid the amount and argued in court that it has no further obligations. The governments, meantime, haven’t sued for the money as certain studies continue on questions such as whether attempts to clean up lingering oil are even advisable.
Steiner told Petroleum News he wasn’t surprised his amicus brief was barred, but was disappointed the judge didn’t simply order ExxonMobil to pay.
“Exxon has been clear it does not intend to pay the claim, and the governments have either lacked commitment or confidence in aggressively pursuing the demand for payment,” Steiner said. “As I argued to the court, the singular question in all of this is what is in the highest and best interest of assisting with full ecological recovery from the spill. Clearly with that as the standard, the court should have ordered the full payment plus interest.”
Judge’s comments Holland did ask the governments and ExxonMobil to provide him with a status report on the reopener issue by Sept. 15.
He also made some interesting comments, cautioning readers not to draw conclusions on his view of the merits of any reopener claim.
The governments and ExxonMobil “have a right to decide for themselves how and when to proceed further with the claim which has been asserted,” Holland wrote.
But he urged the governments to “proceed with all possible speed” to complete the studies.
“There is a public perception that the matter has been unresolved for far too long,” Holland said of the reopener matter.
Further, he said, “the court has expressed its interest in seeing overall closure of proceedings flowing from the grounding of the Exxon Valdez.”
Holland continues to oversee a complex distribution of winnings to thousands of commercial fishermen and others who brought an epic civil suit against ExxonMobil.
| 