"Calif Bill" wrote in message news:rQZSb.5271
Always wondered why Alaska was not also held liable.

Maybe because it wasn't their fault? Naw, couldn't be that, could it?

"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
news:rQZSb.5271
Always wondered why Alaska was not also held liable.

Maybe because it wasn't their fault? Naw, couldn't be that, could it?

Since you snipped my reasoning, I will post it again.

Alaska charged 25 cents a barrel for spill containment equipment. They did
not use the money for the stated purpose. That would constitute fraud in
private business. The spill was many times larger than it should have been,
because of no containment equipment. Therefore the sound reasoning, is the
sound got more damage because of the State of Alaska's failures. They were
therefore responsible for parts of the damage.

"Calif Bill" wrote in message hlink.net...
"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
news:rQZSb.5271
Always wondered why Alaska was not also held liable.

Maybe because it wasn't their fault? Naw, couldn't be that, could it?

Since you snipped my reasoning, I will post it again.

Alaska charged 25 cents a barrel for spill containment equipment. They did
not use the money for the stated purpose. That would constitute fraud in
private business. The spill was many times larger than it should have been,
because of no containment equipment. Therefore the sound reasoning, is the
sound got more damage because of the State of Alaska's failures. They were
therefore responsible for parts of the damage.

Do you have any proof of your allegations? Let's see it.
So, you think that, if a private company's ships crew runs a tanker
aground, that it's somehow the state's fault? Everything I've checked
out proves your claims unfounded. The Alyeska conglomerate, BY LAW,
has to have their own containment equipment, in place, capable of
containing 15% of the contents of the typical tanker. The rest need
not be on-site but available.