http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=prince-william-sound-and-fury-oil-giant-dodges-punitive-damages

Originally fined for 5 billion, reduced to a 10th of that just recently, but, they already paid 3.4 billion in other associated costs related to the cleanup, however, it seems that the eco system they harmed is still struggling to recover. Did they pay the appropriate cost to society? Did the supreme court overstep their bounds with the decision?

6/30/2008 2:45:27 PM

Quote :

"Exxon Mobil Corp. posted the largest annual profit by a U.S. company — $40.6 billion — on Friday as the world’s biggest publicly traded oil company benefited from historic crude prices at the end of the year. Exxon also set a U.S. record for the biggest quarterly profit, posting net income of $11.7 billion for the final three months of 2007, beating its own mark of $10.71 billion in the fourth quarter of 2005. The previous record for annual profit was $39.5 billion, which Exxon Mobil had in 2006."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22949325/

Times are hard. Money doesn't just grow on trees. It's not like they can just make 5 billion dollars appear out of thin air.

Oh wait.

6/30/2008 3:05:52 PM

yes

6/30/2008 3:10:09 PM

Just wondering.

Since all of these oil companies are making so much money, howcome one of them isn't charging much less for their gas and taking all of the customers?

6/30/2008 3:16:20 PM

because markets dont work that way

6/30/2008 3:17:07 PM

I just thought that with all of the shit they're getting, they'd maybe try something. What do i know though

6/30/2008 3:19:43 PM

idk

[Edited on June 30, 2008 at 3:20 PM. Reason : sold me some snes games in 2004 if that helps]

6/30/2008 3:20:30 PM

Quote :

"Since all of these oil companies are making so much money, howcome one of them isn't charging much less for their gas and taking all of the customers?"

I'm not sure if you're joking or not, but either way it proves a point. You're exactly right, in a way. If the oil companies were making a lot of money - that is, actual profit - one of those companies probably would charge less, and the other companies would have to charge less as well in order to compete. The problem is, they aren't making huge profits.

Of course, you have people like Obama making this kind of promise:

Quote :

""I'll make oil companies like Exxon pay a tax on their windfall profits, and we'll use the money to help families pay for their skyrocketing energy costs and other bills.""

I think it's pretty well established that corporations don't pay taxes. Consumers pay taxes. There's this idea that oil companies are just making a killing right now, and that's not really the case.

6/30/2008 3:38:42 PM

Quote :

"The problem is, they aren't making huge profits."

.... where are you getting this from?

they have been breaking quarterly profit records over and over again for a couple years now. In 2007, Exxon made $40.6B profit on revenue of $405B.

6/30/2008 3:41:41 PM

How much do you expect them to make? Their profit margin is well below most other industries.

6/30/2008 3:44:57 PM

what industry do you work for, where -- after overhead, salaries, r&d, inventory, depreciation -- one dollar of revenue out of every ten, is PROFIT?

thats a pretty comfortable margin.... especially at a $40B to $400B scale.

hell, dude. do you even hear yourself? could you possibly be more of a shill?

6/30/2008 3:49:34 PM

Quote :

"How much do you expect them to make? Their profit margin is well below most other industries."

You probably should have clarified that in the first place. Regardless of their profit margin being lower than other industries, record profit is still record profit.

Their punitive damages for reckless negligence and the destruction of an ecosystem is 1 day of revenue at today's record prices. The question I posed in this thread was, is that enough? Let's not derail this thread into a profit margin debate again like has been rehashed several times before in similar threads.

6/30/2008 3:54:20 PM

In the recent past, pharmaceuticals, banking, the food industry, and the software industry have seen much higher profit margins than oil companies. Again, how much do you think they should be making, in profit? 5%? 3%? No profit at all?

Yeah, sorry, a little off topic. I'll cut it out.

[Edited on June 30, 2008 at 3:59 PM. Reason : ]

6/30/2008 3:57:58 PM

No big deal, just that it has been done before. Unless you can somehow tie profit margin to how much they should pay in punitive damages for Valdez, in which case, its definitely this thread worthy.

6/30/2008 4:04:14 PM

eh, a company I used to work for aimed for 15% margin. nothing too crazy, to me.

and seriously, barack. taxing the oil companies to bring prices down. REALLY?

6/30/2008 4:55:37 PM

Quote :

"In the recent past, pharmaceuticals, banking, the food industry, and the software industry have seen much higher profit margins than oil companies."

moot.

Quote :

"Exxon Mobil Corp. posted the largest annual profit by a U.S. company — $40.6 billion — on Friday"

6/30/2008 5:20:39 PM

it's only moot if you look at sheer profit. No company operates on sheer profit. They all operate on profit MARGIN. It is by means of margin that they make sheer profit. And, guess what? The COST of oil has skyrocketed. SO it should come as no surprise that the profits of oil sellers, who operate ON MARGIN, should also increase.

However, as I understand the Valdez incident, Exxon got off the hook because the damages were supposed to be capped according to the fines or something that they paid. I forget exactly how it was phrased when I heard it on NPR. You can look at the Supreme Court and call them evil for doing so, but that is exactly what the law at the time said. I can't fault them for actually upholding the fucking law for once. Even though I think Exxon should pay massively more to fix what they did.

6/30/2008 5:23:55 PM

It's moot due to the fact that those are completely different industries that produce a fraction of the revenue of the energy industry. You might as well compare it to the profit margin of owning a gumball machine at Super Wal-Mart.

Quote :

"The COST of oil has skyrocketed. SO it should come as no surprise that the profits of oil sellers, who operate ON MARGIN, should also increase."

Profit margins are static now?

Which is why this is more relevant than anything else that has been said in this thread regarding profits:

Quote :

"Since all of these oil companies are making so much money, howcome one of them isn't charging much less for their gas and taking all of the customers?"

In a truly free market this should happen. I think it has more to do with the high cost of getting into the oil industry than anything else. Supply chains, refineries, and distribution aren't cheap. I guess it's not price fixing as long as they don't sit down to talk about it.

6/30/2008 5:59:35 PM

it's not moot. Why should Exxon operate any differently than any other company? Because it inconveniences you? That's hardly a good reason.

6/30/2008 6:01:44 PM

FYI on profit margins:

Sectors			Net Profit Margin (mrq)
Industrial Goods		6.201
Services			6.467
Consumer Goods			7.532
Financial			7.811
Utilities			8.831
Technology			9.205
Conglomerates			10.7
Healthcare			11.031
Basic Materials			12.764

Basic Materials
Industry		Net Profit Margin (mrq)
Nonmetallic Mineral Mining	-1.6
Specialty Chemicals		3.4
Synthetics			4.3
Oil & Gas Refining & Marketing	5.5
Oil & Gas Pipelines		6.3
Chemicals - Major Diversified	7
Aluminum			8.2
Major Integrated Oil & Gas	9.3
Silver				9.7
Gold				11.4
Independent Oil & Gas		13.1
Oil, Gas Drilling & Exploration	14
Oil & Gas Equipment & Services	14.8
Agricultural Chemicals		15
Steel & Iron			15.1
Copper				19.9
Industrial Metals & Minerals	20.3

Oil & Gas Refining & Marketing
Description		Net Profit Margin (mrq)
Basic Materials			12.764
Oil & Gas Refining & Marketing	5.5
Syntroleum Corp.		-142.83
China Yili Petroleum Co.	-101.895
Nova Biosource Fuels, Inc.	-93.552
Petroleum Development Corp.	-13.871
Eagle Rock Energy Partners, L.	-7.632
Alon USA Energy Inc.		-3.321
Western Refining Inc.		-1.584
Tesoro Corporation		-1.255
Interoil Corp.			-1.248
Calumet Specialty Products Par	-0.57
Sunoco Inc.			-0.483
United Fuel & Energy Corporati	-0.45
Delek US Holdings Inc.		-0.41
Enterprise GP Holdings L.P.	0.547
Holly Corp.			0.584
Crosstex Energy Inc.		0.844
Valero Energy Corp.		0.941
CVR Energy, Inc.		1.817
Frontier Oil Corp.		3.877
Marathon Oil Corp.		4.402
Arabian American Development C	4.533
Murphy Oil Corp.		6.302
Hess Corporation		7.115
Imperial Oil Ltd.		9.842
YPF S.A.			15.232
Petro-Canada			16.261
Sasol Ltd.			16.478
BP Prudhoe Bay Royalty Trust	99.749
Biogold Fuels Corporation	NA
EMTA Holdings, Inc.		NA
NexGen Biofuels Ltd.		NA
Sulphco Inc.			NA

Major Integrated Oil & Gas
Description		Net Profit Margin (mrq)
Basic Materials			12.764
Major Integrated Oil & Gas	9.3
Petrobras Energia Participacio	5.989
Repsol YPF SA			7.575
Royal Dutch Shell plc		7.946
Chevron Corp.			7.993
ConocoPhillips			8.111
BP plc				8.492
Total SA			9.168
Exxon Mobil Corp.		10.311
PetroChina Co. Ltd.		11.15
Eni SpA				11.66
International Fuel Technology	NA

6/30/2008 6:05:27 PM

you need to compare it to commodities, not industries

6/30/2008 6:35:42 PM

Quote :

"[quote]it's not moot. Why should Exxon operate any differently than any other company? Because it inconveniences you? That's hardly a good reason."

[/quote]

What makes you think Exxon is operating the same as other companies? For that matter, what makes you think these profit margins are set in stone? You do realize they change all the time don't you?

If a company in any other industry could generate 40.6 billion dollars on a 8% profit margin some other company would come in and do it for a 4% margin. The difference here is that the handful of companies that supply our energy needs don't seem to be very competitive (why would they if they don't have to?) and it is too cost prohibitive for any emerging companies to come in and steal market share.

6/30/2008 7:03:47 PM

Quote :

"however, it seems that the eco system they harmed is still struggling to recover"

Facts not in evidence. Exxon paid for the cleanup, paid its federal, state, and local fines, and compensated everyone who was the least bit harmed. What was at issue were punitive damages, which are absurd: Exxon did not do this on purpose, so 'punishment' is unwarranted. Punitive damages are an absurdly backward tradition with no place in the modern world. If you want to punish someone then throw them in jail, but don't reward victims for becoming victims.

Quote :

"Since all of these oil companies are making so much money, howcome one of them isn't charging much less for their gas and taking all of the customers?"

Because at the current price they are already selling all of their inventory. If they lowered their price they would still sell all of their inventory.

To put it another way: if the oil companies decided tomorrow to lower their prices regardless of inventory position then drivers would consume just a little more and therefore consumers would try to purchase more than exists in the gas stations, "Out of Gas" signs would go up, people would get frightened and start hoarding fuel.

[Edited on June 30, 2008 at 7:20 PM. Reason : .,.]

6/30/2008 7:14:10 PM

Quote :

"which are absurd: Exxon did not do this on purpose, so 'punishment' is unwarranted. Punitive damages are a backward uniquely American tradition with no place in the modern world."

They obviously didn't want an oil spill, but there easily could have been poor or neglectful policies that helped contribute to the spill, that do warrant punitive damages. And in fact, a court did determine this was the cause.

6/30/2008 7:25:03 PM

reaffirm that its ok to pollute as long as you pay money for it

they shouldv'e made them create some new wetlands in addition to the ones they had to mitigate or replace, but apparently cash works just as well, kind of like carbon credits

6/30/2008 7:39:37 PM

And I, like the rest of the planet, do not believe mere negligence rises to level of punishment. If you want to punish me for my behavior then you must prove your case beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal court. Proving that I was negligent should make me clean up your beach front, not also buy you your own carribean island.

It strikes me as a crime against humanity to have people sitting around praying for a horrible accident to befall them just so they can enjoy a lucrative punitive damages claim. The cure is easy: civil courts should be there to make you whole (lost wages, hospital bills, pain and suffering, damages to property), nothing more.

6/30/2008 7:43:49 PM

Quote :

"What makes you think Exxon is operating the same as other companies? For that matter, what makes you think these profit margins are set in stone? You do realize they change all the time don't you? If a company in any other industry could generate 40.6 billion dollars on a 8% profit margin some other company would come in and do it for a 4% margin. The difference here is that the handful of companies that supply our energy needs don't seem to be very competitive (why would they if they don't have to?) and it is too cost prohibitive for any emerging companies to come in and steal market share."

Do you even understand what fucking "profit margin" is? Clearly you don't. Taking your absurd example, if Exxon generates $40.6 billion on 8% margin, then any other company that tried to do the same on 4% margin would have to SELL TWICE AS MUCH. That's the fucking definition of margin, man!

Let me explain it to you. Profit margin, when calculated according to cost, means that if something costs me 100 bux to produce, and I want to make a 15% margin, then I sell for $115. Please, genius, explain to me how someone could generate the same fucking profit at half the margin without doubling their sales. Please, get to explaining that.

6/30/2008 8:03:25 PM

Quote :

"If a company in any other industry could generate 40.6 billion dollars on a 8% profit margin some other company would come in and do it for a 4% margin."

See the word "for" there. Note how the word is "for" and not "on" or "with." I was stating that in a competitive market some other company would supply our energy needs for a 4% margin, thus generating an acceptable profit that is far lower than the 40.6 billion dollars generated by Exxon. I was not stating that a company would generate 40.6 billion dollars on a 4% profit margin.

Quote :

"Let me explain it to you. Profit margin, when calculated according to cost, means that if something costs me 100 bux to produce, and I want to make a 15% margin, then I sell for $115."

Actually, it looks like you're the one who needs a lesson in profit margins. If you sell a product for $115 and make a $15 profit you have a profit margin of 13%.
Nice lesson on profit margins, genius.


[Edited on June 30, 2008 at 8:35 PM. Reason : l]

6/30/2008 8:31:35 PM

BTTT(opic)

Quote :

"Originally fined for 5 billion, reduced to a 10th of that just recently, but, they already paid 3.4 billion in other associated costs related to the cleanup, however, it seems that the eco system they harmed is still struggling to recover. Did they pay the appropriate cost to society? Did the supreme court overstep their bounds with the decision?"

You are asking a few different questions in this post.

Quote :

"it seems that the eco system they harmed is still struggling to recover."

I've heard conflicting reports. Facts would be nice.

Quote :

"Did they pay the appropriate cost to society? "

Good question. However, it has nothing to do with the punitive damages that the Supreme Court recently ruled on. The costs to "society" or rather the fishermen in Prince William Sound, were decided on over a decade ago. These damages are known as "compensatory damages", which is completely different from punitive damages.

Quote :

"Did the supreme court overstep their bounds with the decision?"

No more than they have with several rulings in recent history regarding punitive damages. The precedent set by previous Supreme Courts is to set punitive damages as a multiple of compensatory damages, without as much regard to company profits. The idea is that while juries can be easily swayed to decide on huge punitive damages due to the massive profit margins of these companies, justice should not take into account the size of the company at play but rather the nature of the infraction. For instance, there is no way that a jury would have found a small, independent oil transport company liable for 5 billion dollars in punitive damages, even if they had done more damage than the Exxon Valdez disaster.

6/30/2008 9:13:18 PM

Quote :

"I've heard conflicting reports. Facts would be nice."

I haven't researched it myself. My opening comment was just a paraphrasing what was at the link, specifically

Quote :

"Although the recovery is nearly complete, aftereffects of the massive spill can still be found in the area, according to supervisory research chemist Jeffrey Short at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Alaska Fisheries Science Center. "We've been tracking the long-term effects of the spill because it's such a clear example. [We] don't have a lot of other pollution sources to confound the picture," he says. "The animals that have had the most difficulty bouncing all the way back are sea otters, sea ducks and possibly some intertidal fish." Sea otters that have been contaminated by oil can still be found in the sound and two killer whale pods have been devastated, among other environmental impacts. "One is in big trouble and the other is almost certain to go extinct," Short says. "Bottom line is they're not reproducing," even though almost all of the oil is gone."

I don't know how you put a dollar figure on that bit of info, if these facts are legit.

Quote :

"Good question. However, it has nothing to do with the punitive damages that the Supreme Court recently ruled on. The costs to "society" or rather the fishermen in Prince William Sound, were decided on over a decade ago. These damages are known as "compensatory damages", which is completely different from punitive damages."

This too was addressed in the link

Quote :

"The ruling caps the total damages assessed to the company at $507.5 million, a fraction of the $5 billion a jury initially awarded in 1994. "This means that corporations like Exxon can simply put a price tag on the destruction of our marine life, our oceans and, ultimately families," says Jim Ayers, Juneau-based vice president at marine environmental group Oceana and the first executive director of the trust set up to manage the recovery and restoration of the sound. "They can estimate the value of that loss, put it into the expense column and roll forward with blatant disregard.""

I for one am a bit confused as to how they arrived at 500 million when they ended up paying nearly 1 billion for cleanup. Punitive should be a multiple of that, not a fraction of that. And a jury of peers called for 5 billion, but that can just be overturned by a group of life appointed old law geezers because of a technicality in the way the law is written? Sigh.

6/30/2008 10:00:13 PM

Quote :

"I for one am a bit confused as to how they arrived at 500 million when they ended up paying nearly 1 billion for cleanup. Punitive should be a multiple of that, not a fraction of that. And a jury of peers called for 5 billion, but that can just be overturned by a group of life appointed old law geezers because of a technicality in the way the law is written? Sigh."

Had the case come before any other supreme court in the world the multiple returned would have been zero.

But, under America's broke ass system, the non-punitive damages found in court were 500 million, thus punitive damages of 500 million works out to a multiple of 1. The other half a billion dollars exxon spent on its own behalf or was paid in fines to local, state, and federal regulators.

And yes, as per the constitution the Supreme Court has the right to rule on such matters. Regretfully, the proper rulling was $zero, but people like you would have never understood that a billion dollars plus all the lawyers fees spent until now was punishment enough for whatever mistakes were made.

[Edited on June 30, 2008 at 10:16 PM. Reason : .,.]

6/30/2008 10:15:24 PM

has anyone run the numbers on the following:

the NEW cost of gas for the company that chooses a 4% margin and only profits $20 billion instead of $40 billion. let's assume this is possible immediately.


i'd imagine it wouldn't be THAT much lower, maybe $0.16? (pulled from ass crack)

[Edited on July 1, 2008 at 9:14 AM. Reason : ]

7/1/2008 9:13:52 AM

actually, making a number of assumptions about the supply chain for simplicities sake, 16 cents is pretty accurate based on $4/gallon gas.

7/1/2008 9:22:51 AM

I'm a fan of shifting blame from oil companies to the more serious roots of the problem. if they're making ~$0.36/gal of gas, cutting their fucking profits won't do shit.

The federal government makes about TWICE as much off a gallon of gas than an oil company does here. States make about the same as the oil company, if not more.

now if they INCREASE their margins significantly with how much they're making, that's screwed up. they seem to have just kept their margins in place as they have been in the past, so they're making more.

Does anyone know the $$ amount in tax breaks we're currently giving them? If we took THOSE away, how much would it cut into their profits? and would this even be a good thing?

7/1/2008 9:37:15 AM

^ finally a reasonable post in this thread.

the real beneficiaries of "windfall profits" are federal and state governments, not the oil companies.

but you lefties want to give the government more power and more money.

I can only shake my head.

7/1/2008 9:47:45 AM

Quote :

"which are absurd: Exxon did not do this on purpose, so 'punishment' is unwarranted. Punitive damages are a backward uniquely American tradition with no place in the modern world.""

exactly. Its amazing how much more damage bill gates vs. average joe when they give you a fender bender. The idea that they have more, therefore you are entitled to more(for the same incident) is extremely childish and total bullshit.

7/1/2008 10:01:06 AM

Quote :

"Actually, it looks like you're the one who needs a lesson in profit margins. If you sell a product for $115 and make a $15 profit you have a profit margin of 13%. Nice lesson on profit margins, genius."

This may come as a shock to you, but some companies calculate their margin based on cost. Something I clearly indicated in the very words on which you quoted me:

Quote :

"Let me explain it to you. Profit margin, when calculated according to cost"

But hey, when you can't argue with facts, argue semantics, ignoring where the person has spelled out his semantics previously anyway.

Quote :

"See the word "for" there. Note how the word is "for" and not "on" or "with." I was stating that in a competitive market some other company would supply our energy needs for a 4% margin, thus generating an acceptable profit that is far lower than the 40.6 billion dollars generated by Exxon. I was not stating that a company would generate 40.6 billion dollars on a 4% profit margin."

So then tell me, genius, what company in their right fucking mind would come in and make half the profit? Why would they do that? You clearly fail to comprehend the reason for operating on a margin. Namely, as I understand it, it helps protect the company against inflationary pressures. You go out and sell your widgets for a penny over the cost, no matter what the cost, and eventually your ass will be curb-stomped by inflation. You won't be able to buy a cheeseburger, no matter how many widgets you sell. BUT, if you sell your widgets at margin, then you guarantee your ability to deal with inflation, at the bare minimum, since your costs should increase roughly proportional with inflation.

Moreover, someone else in this thread already addressed why the oil companies DON'T operate at a lower margin, namely that it is pointless. Operating at a lower margin will only drive up demand, which they can't keep up with, so they lose money. That's why companies generally sell their product where the supply curve crosses the demand curve. Welcome to economics 101, buddy.

7/1/2008 11:39:40 PM

bump by request

4/7/2009 4:52:07 PM

Oooh, this should be good.

4/7/2009 5:23:50 PM

Yeah this is bullshit, make them pay more they're reaping record profits.

You know, b/c building new refineries and drilling at new sites is so cheap.

4/7/2009 9:22:23 PM

http://www.minyanville.com/articles/index/a/22052

^ You're a loon

Quote :

"From the $500 million it didn’t pay in 1994, Exxon has since made $4 billion, based on the company’s return-on-investment, according to Portfolio. (Even after subtracting the $400 million Exxon has reportedly paid its lawyers, it’s still a nice return.) No wonder Big Oil has been such a lightning rod for criticism the last few years. As for the Alaskans whose livelihoods were destroyed by the spill, they’ll likely receive an average of $30,000 each. It seems like a tiny pittance for victims of one of the largest ecological disasters in history. Whatever the final payout, 20% of it will be scooped up by the more than 80 law firms that have represented the plaintiffs. And of the 38,000 original plaintiffs, 6,000 have died since the first suits were filed."

Isn't that kind of cool, on top of fucking an entire ecosystem for a generation or more, they only had to pony up 400 million to fuck over an additional 6000 people that had the clock expire on them while waiting for proper retribution.

In regard to the punitive damages being meant to teach a lesson AND even without that the free market should teach them a lesson, apparently not:

Quote :

"Sadly, yes. Its lessons don’t seem to have sunk in. Bloomberg calculates that Exxon uses more single-hulled tankers -- the most vulnerable to spills -- than the rest of the 10 biggest oil companies combined. By doing so, it saved one penny a share last year. "

I guess they assume a spill like they had was a once in a multiple lifetimes event, so why not just roll the dice that none of the past, current, and near future execs won't be confronted with something like this again and that extra penny per share they saved they get to take 1/2 as a bonus. You're right...its soooooooooooo expensive to build oil rigs

4/7/2009 10:29:49 PM

If your company is allowing someone to pilot a potential eco-system destroyer such as a tanker, you better damn well make sure he isn't a drunk.

Exxon should suffer a lot for the Valdez mistake.

4/8/2009 11:08:48 AM

As it has. half a billion to compensate all damage the incident caused and then another half billion just to reward those lucky enough to live near where the accident happened.

4/8/2009 11:45:51 AM

Quote :

"Did they pay the appropriate cost to society?"

yep

4/8/2009 12:39:57 PM

so, $1B. that's, what.... 2 days worth of profit from last year?

4/8/2009 12:40:18 PM

More like 8 days. So what?

4/8/2009 1:01:27 PM

Quote :

"As it has. half a billion to compensate all damage the incident caused and then another half billion just to reward those lucky enough to live near where the accident happened."

In your opinion what is the appropriate cost they should have paid? Let me guess, the cost of cleanup and the effect that had on their short term bottom line, no punitive damages, right?

[Edited on April 8, 2009 at 1:55 PM. Reason : .]

4/8/2009 1:55:11 PM

Just read my prior posts in this very thread. The standards of evidence in a criminal trial compared to those in a civil trial are more stringent for very good reasons. It does not do society any good to drag the activity of punishment into civil courts. They are ill-equiped to judge intent and the standards of evidence are absurdly light. As I said above: "Punitive damages are an absurdly backward tradition with no place in the modern world. If you want to punish someone then throw them in jail, but don't reward victims for becoming victims." If someone is intentionally negligent and deserves to be punished then drag them into criminal court and prove your case beyond a reasonable doubt. The judge will order restitution and fines. But no, you cannot sustain the burden of proof so you drag the act of punishment into civil court, an act that occurs in no other country on Earth that I am aware of.

4/8/2009 2:43:16 PM

Ask tallpaul

I bet he'd say NO. His family fishes for a living in Alaska.

The spill had a big affect on his family (as well as many others).

4/8/2009 7:05:58 PM

set em up

4/9/2009 8:24:27 AM