exxon

Shapattack

One 400-Gallon Argument Against Offshore Oil Drilling

August 24, 2008 at 11:56PM By Dan Shapley | comment

The argument for offshore oil drilling has focused, wrongly, on current gasoline prices.

It's been well established that increased offshore oil drilling would make, at best, a few cents of difference on pump prices in about 10 years, assuming that the world's insatiable thirst for oil doesn't continue to increase, which is about as likely as Dick Cheney giving up hunting.

The argument against oil drilling has, also wrongly, focused on the potential environmental disasters in store from offshore drilling. Congress and past presidents restricted offshore oil drilling because of catastrophic spills that turned public opinion, particularly the opinion of beach-goers and wealthy coastal landowners, soundly against the idea of energy exploration near their ocean views.

At least, I thought the environmental disaster argument was wrong -- because it misses a larger point: Investing in oil now is like deciding it's a good time to get into the subprime mortgage business. The game ending, and you've already lost. Better to invest in alternatives now, while we still have enough oil to run the economy, than to postpone the inevitable and invite a future of persistent scarcity and high costs that dwarf those we've endured recently. (This is the pragmatic argument, ignoring completely for a moment that weaning ourselves off oil and coal will be essential to solve the global warming crisis.)

But maybe the offshore oil-environmental catastrophe argument is right after all.

Exhibit A: Exxon-Mobil. ...

comment | permalink | print | email |

tags: oil, exxon, epa, profits, offshore drilling, pcbs

Justice Alito Owns $100,000+ of Exxon Stock

February 28, 2008 at 8:14AM By Dan Shapley | comment

With a precedent-setting case before the Supreme Court about whether and how much Exxon Mobil should pay in punitive damages for the Exxon Valdez oil spill that ruined lives, careers and wildlife in Alaska nearly two decades ago, the Supreme Court is hamstrung by one justice's financial ties to the world's largest and most profitable company.

Justice Samuel Alito, appointed by President Bush, owns "thousands" of shares of Exxon Mobil stock, according to the PBS NewsHour, at a value CBS News estimated between $100,000 and $250,000.

He rightly recused himself to avoid the appearance that having a quarter of a million dollars riding on a case might sway his decision. The plaintiffs, Alaskan residents (20% of whom have died since the lawsuit was first filed), seek $2.5 billion in damages for the loss of property value, ability to fish and other factors.

Oddly, his recusal may help the plaintiffs by splitting the remaining justices evenly. Because it is Exxon's appeal of a lower court's ruling, a tie goes to the Alaskans.

But such an outcome would fail to actually decide the matter, legally. How liable is a corporation, whose profits make it richer than many nations, for the damage it does in the name of profit? How much — Exxon has already paid upwards of $3 billion to state and local governments, and on the cleanup itself — is enough? To what degree is a company responsible for the conduct of its managers, and does a tanker captain count as a corporate manager?

A deadlock would leave those questions unanswered, which could mean the next case of this magnitude will take another 20 years to be resolved. Exxon Mobil can bank some of its record $40 billion profits from last year and use the interest to pay off its legal bills and any far-off settlements. For the aggrieved, a 20-year wait is not justice.

Supreme Court Exxon Valdez case
Supreme Court Justices, minus Samuel Alito, hear arguments
in the Exxon Valdez punitive damages case.
–Dana Verkouteren/AP