So you're holding a man responsible for the actions of another, that he had no control over, whom he had never met, whom he never had heard of? Is that correct?
No, I am holding him responsible for the actions of Exxon, the corporate entity that he was in charge of, as well as his personal behavior, comments and commitments.
Overall responsibility does belong to Exxon, who immediately began clean up
At least we can agree on this.
so it would appear that you've adopted the same illogical hysteria that the residents of New Orleans have.
Yeah thats a good argument
Two very different things entirely. You and I both know that.
Alaskans BEGGED for Exxon to come up there and drill for oil, and the hazards were explained to everyone, yet you persisted. So they went up there, employed YOUR citizens, fattened YOUR wallets and YOUR economy on oil money, and now you want to complain about the scorch mark on your dress after you've been dancing with the Devil for all these years? PLEASE! You went into the relationship with the oil companies with your eyes wide open, you benefited from the oil money, now wear your scarlet letter with pride, you EARNED IT! To put it another way, you sound as silly as the town whore who screwed every drunken sailor in town and took their money, but is now suing to get her cherry back.
Firstly, the tone of most of this statement is unnecessary. I am not going to go down the road of you twisting my comments into quasi personal attacks at myself, an entire poppulation of a state. It is unbecoming, and shows an inability to have a serious discussion. Bring these types of posts elsewhere.
I am not interested. But to address the one thing worthy of mentioning is that Exxon's relationship with the State of Alaska. There is no doubt it has been mutually beneficial. The state bent over backwards to accomodate oil development, and the other two major producers here, BP and Conoco Phillips have been very good stewards of the resource and excellent corporate citizens overall.
While you may have evidence to the contrary, I have seen none that indicates that Hazlewood was a "known alcoholic" either to Exxon, or anyone else.
Well, you might want to read up on it.
http://www.adn.com/evos/stories/EV53.html
Hazelwood's problems with alcohol first surfaced publicly in 1982, when he was sued by a young seaman who claimed a drunken Hazelwood struck him. But, until last spring, most of Hazelwood's drinking problems happened while he was behind the wheel of an automobile. Drinking and driving cost Hazelwood his driver's license three times. His license was revoked at the time of the oil spill.
In 1984, police in New York charged him with driving while intoxicated. New York Department of Motor Vehicle records show Hazelwood refused to submit to a blood test and his license was revoked Nov. 2, 1984. He was fined $500.
His license was revoked again Aug. 9, 1985, after another drunk driving arrest. His license was restored May 28, 1986.
Hazelwood's last drunk driving arrest occurred Sept. 13, 1988. The records show he was convicted two days later and his license was revoked Nov. 10, 1988 by New York state.
Testifying before the National Transportation Safety Board in Anchorage last May, Exxon Shipping Co. President Frank Iarossi said the company was unaware of Hazelwood's string of drunkdriving arrests, but the company did know he had a drinking problem
I have also been unable to find any official indication of Exxon permitting it's ships masters to drink within 4 hours of taking their vessels to sea.
It would also be pertinent to note that Hazlewood was not found guilty of being drunk by an ALASKA jury, and that his BAC was well below the level necessary for a conviction of DUI.
Hmmm, BAC of .061 a full 10 hours after he was done drinking? He was aquitted of DUI in Alaska. The USCG found him to drunk to be in command of the vessel and suspended his license for 9months.
Frankly, from what I saw when I was up there of the vast majority of your citizens being RAVING alcoholics (as noted by your signature line), his having 2 vodka's, 4 hours prior to departing makes him a tea-totler!
This is the sort of comments that I address in my earlier statements. It is totally incorrect, and nothing but baiting and I will not tolerate this. If that is your sentiments, then do us all a favor up here and never return.
Ah, but if one runs onto a sidewalk to avoid hitting a school bus, and happens to hit a pedestrian, what then? The Valdez left the shipping lane to avoid icebergs, not to do some joy riding. Now while I readily acknowledge that Hazlewood should have been at the helm, and not turned his vessel over to such an inexperienced seaman, especially in such treacherous waters, while he retired to his cabin, the fact is that the seaman was rated, by the USCG, to handle the vessel, and it was he who violated Hollywood's orders to return to the shipping lanes almost an hour before the vessel ran aground.
What you are failing to miss entirely, the reason Hazelwood is culpable is because he is the captain of that vessel, and responsible for the operations of it, in its entirety. The guy at the helm at the time is also an idiot. No question. He ran a 900something foot tanker into a clearly marker navigation hazard on his chart.
Ahh, it all becomes clear now, it's not about the Courts ruling, it's about the money. The Alaska ruling was null and void on it's face the moment it was rendered. Maritime law limits punitive damages to the same amount as compensatory damages, so the court ruled correctly in lowering the punitive damage amount. If the Judge in the original trial had followed the law, none of these appeals would have been necessary in the first place, and no delay would have occurred in the clean up efforts, or getting the punitive damages to the proper parties. Don't blame Exxon because your own Judge dropped the ball.
No, ultimately it is about the courts ruling. They took quite a hard line approach in favor of vessel owners and operators. I think it is generally quite short sighted and out of date with modern times.
Also, my own judge? Why do I even bother?
No, the NTSB does. In the investigation following the grounding, the NTSB ruled that the Coast Guard failed to provide sufficient navigational aids and a sufficient vessel traffic system in Prince William Sound.
Here is the main causes as found by the NTSB.
(1) The third mate failed to properly maneuver the vessel, possibly due to fatigue and excessive workload;
We have been over this. The man at the helm, third mate Cousins was obviously an idiot and should never have been left alone on the bridge. He probably shouldnt have been left alone in a skiff.
(2) the master failed to provide a proper navigation watch, possibly due to impairment from alcohol;
We have been over this.
(3) Exxon Shipping Company failed to supervise the master and provide a rested and sufficient crew for the Exxon Valdez;
There has long been speculation that Cousins was also under the influence of something himself at the time. Of course nothing proven, but Hazelwood and the crew were not entirely forth coming right away about what exactly went down, and had quite a bit of time alone to corraborate any story necessary.
(4) the U.S. Coast Guard failed to provide an effective vessel traffic system;
Again, a clearly charted hazard and was clearly marked on the ships chart. What they now have in place is a lighted bouy marker.
(5) effective pilot and escort services were lacking.
They now require pilot and escort until the vessels have cleared Hitchinbrook Island are more or less in the Gulf of Alaska. Whereas before they only needed to be on board while transiting the Valdez Narrows.
As I said earlier, the mate failed to follow his orders and return the vessel to the shipping lane prior to his assigned deadline, that is NOT in question. What IS in question are the rules that allowed a vessel such as the Valdez to continue to operate outside the shipping lane in the first place, for such an extended period of time. Having grown up near the ocean, and having family in the shipping business, I'm more than a bit familiar with the rules relating to shipping traffic, and I can assure you that the Coast Guard rules in place in Prince William Sound for traveling outside the shipping lanes would have been found to be reckless even in the Gulf of Mexico, or in the Central Atlantic.
Oh so again its the USCGs fault?
PWS is generally ice free, except for calving glaciers which is where you get the ice bergs from. They were well outside of where they were intended to be. One can make all the traffic rules they want, it doesnt prevent someone breaking them though.
