Why Rule Out a Plea Bargain? : Be Smart, Not Vindictive, With Exxon: Feds Could Lose

Just what will it take to compensate Alaska for all that crude oil that fouled the state’s pristine shoreline last March? What punishment of Exxon is appropriate for the Exxon Valdez spill? And what, if anything, can repair the damage to the Alaskan psyche and the wrenching of Alaskan social cohesion?

Some of these questions presumably will be answered in the trial of a five-count criminal indictment returned against Exxon after the U.S. Justice Department gave up attempts to negotiate an out-of-court settlement. There was considerable criticism of the Justice Department for seeming to rush to an agreement that was acceptable to Exxon but not to Alaska.

A plea bargain should not be ruled out, though, just because the case has now moved into the courtroom. This will be a tough one for the government to win. Even if it prevails, there is no assurance that Exxon will be fined as much as the firm was willing to settle for without a trial. But if negotiations are reopened, the key element is to bring the state of Alaska to the table as a full partner. The crude oil may have spilled in federal waters, but the real damage was sustained by Alaskans and Alaskan natural resources.

Not to be overlooked are the social and economic consequences of the spill. Much has been made of the estimated $2 billion Exxon spent with such elan on the cleanup. A boon to the economy, some said. But another view is that Exxon showered southern Alaska with money partly to offset the public- relations beating the firm was taking. And this windfall of currency--workers bolted their $5-an-hour local jobs to get $16 from Exxon--caused severe disruption of the economy and even the social fabric. Bitterness, reminiscent of the raucous pipeline-construction days in the 1970s, erupted between those who took Exxon money and those who refused; those who were, or became, “pro-oil” and those who were “anti-oil.”

Back in the ‘70s, Alaskans yielded to oil-industry soothings and their own greed in discounting the warnings of danger, Terry Carr, an Anchorage Daily News editorial writer, recalled recently in Newsweek. “Alaskans rationalized that we could have the best of both worlds: the incredible riches the oil wrought and the incredible beauty of the land,” he said.

The bubble burst and now the penalty must be exacted from Exxon. It should be fair, not vindictive. But it also must be done in such a way that Alaskans feel that they retain some control over their own destiny.