Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Ask Michael Burke -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mama Bear who wrote (85518)	11/15/2000 6:52:39 PM
From: Thomas M.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

Why do you feel the need to defend this villainous company? Especially since you obviously have only a cursory knowledge of the subject? During an investigation in 1985, Capt. Joseph Hazelwood admitted to drinking aboard ship and coming back to the ship drunk. He went through a 21-day company alcohol rehabilitation program. Following this, Exxon failed to offer him a shoreside job, and instead put him back to sea as a captain. There was no program for monitoring him. Although Exxon officials testified before Congress and to the jury that Hazelwood was the most carefully monitored person in the Exxon fleet, they could not produce a single piece of paper which confirmed any monitoring at all. Many of Hazelwood’s superiors, including port captains and fleet coordinators who were supposed to be monitoring him, testified that they had no knowledge that he was monitored. Despite numerous reports to high-level management about Joseph Hazelwood's drinking, including one the week before this fateful voyage, no action was taken by Exxon to remove the risk of a drinking captain. The person in charge of Exxon’s alcohol policy testified to the jury that Exxon’s policy would permit a relapsed alcoholic to be captain on the company’s ships. Indeed, at the time of the grounding, Hazelwood had no valid driver's license, having had them revoked in two states for multiple drunken driving convictions. Despite the fact that that Hazelwood had no valid license to drive the smallest of cars, Exxon gave him the reins to its largest oil-laden supertanker. It is little wonder that the jurors found Exxon reckless and provided a fine that they felt was warranted by the devastation Exxon’s failed policies and greed had caused. cglaw.com Regarding "mechanical failure", it is well known that a double-hulled ship significantly reduces the risk of spillage in the event of an oil tanker accident, as well as the amount of oil released into the water in the event of a spill (since the leaking oil is partially contained by the second hull). Tom

To: Mama Bear who wrote (85518)	11/15/2000 11:59:22 PM
From: wiz	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

"And, was the ship up to the latest safety standards?" Do you own Exxon stock or something??..lol No, it could have been double hulled, and maybe it would have helped.. course he hit the reef pretty hard. It might have damaged both hulls. One can also plot a course out of that harbor, with GPS, and never touch a wheel.. not a bad idea if you plan to be heavy drinking. Hazelton had a serious history of alcohol abuse. I can get tested for drugs and alcohol randomly when I'm working with the public(I also do some guiding).. if I test positive, the coast guard rips my licence away.. Exxon knew of his drinking problem, and did nothing. That's pretty irresponsible when you have a guy driving around with 25 million gallons of oil.. wizz