Exxon has not paid the bill, and the governments have yet to take the matter to court. #

Now an Alaska environmentalist is seeking to persuade a federal judge to compel Exxon to pay the $92 million, plus another $23 million in interest. #

At stake is more than money that could be used restore a Prince William Sound still injured by the 11 million gallon spill, said Rick Steiner, the retired University of Alaska marine science professor and longtime Alaska activist who filed the motion to compel the payment. #

It’s worth reading the motion in full. One of Steiner’s motivations, according to the report, is the precedent his case will set for the after-effects of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. #

Exxon said last week that it’s done compensating damages from the 1989 spill, according to the Alaska Distpatch. #

Every year since 1993, U.S. offshore oil drilling has spilled an average of 47,800 barrels of oil into the water. At that rate, it takes about 10 years to spill as much as was spilled during the Exxon Valdez disaster. Offshore oil drilling, seen that way, is just a slow-moving spill.

Wrong. At that rate, it would take 230 years to equal the Exxon Valdez spillage.

Update: As a commenter pointed out, our math is wrong as well. We confused gallons with barrels. It will actually take just more than six years. We regret the error.

Palin was a veritable fountain of recent Supreme Court trivia when Carl Cameron asked her if she could name any decisions she disagreed with, other than Roe vs. Wade.

Palin cited Kennedy vs. Louisiana, in which the high court held that a death sentence for a man convicted of the rape of a child constituted cruel and unusual punishment. Palin took issue with the ruling because Louisiana’s “rights were taken away by the Supreme Court.”

She also disagrees with  “the Kelo case,” or Kelo vs. New London — a now-famous eminent domain ruling — because “property rights are so precious.”

Finally, she disputed the recent Exxon vs. Baker decision, which directly affected her state while she was governor.

She did not refer to it by name, instead saying, “the Exxon Valdez oil spill — the siding with the oil company, as they decimated Alaska’s coastline…on the punitive damage that was to be awarded.”

Cameron also allowed Palin another stab at answering which newspapers and magazines she reads. He said her answer was, “The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal and…The Economist magazine.”

Wow. Nothing to be embarrassed about there. If she’s so well-informed, why didn’t she just say that the first time?

UPDATE: Here’s the video, thanks to TPM.

Norah O’Donnell asked Stapleton to explain why, when Palin was asked to name a Supreme Court decision she disagrees with, she didn’t simply point to the Exxon Shipping Co. vs. Baker (PDF) ruling.

That decision was handed down just three months ago, directly affected her state and, most important, she said she disagreed with it at the time! The ruling greatly reduced the punitive award Alaska will receive from Exxon for the oil company’s negligence in the 1989 Valdez oil spill.

From The Juneau Empire, the day after the ruling:

“I am extremely disappointed with today’s decision by the U.S. Supreme Court,” Palin said. “While the decision brings some degree of closure to Alaskans suffering from 19 years of litigation and delay, the court gutted the jury’s decision on punitive damages.”

Palin added, “It is tragic that so many Alaska fishermen and their families have had their lives put on hold waiting for this decision. My heart goes out to those affected, especially the families of the thousands of Alaskans who passed away while waiting for justice.”

Palin said the decision today undercut one of the principal legs of deterrence for those engaged in maritime shipping in Alaska waters. She called on state and federal agencies to be vigilant and firm in regulating such activities.

Anyway, that’s the background. Here’s what Stapleton just said:

“I think what she’s doing is she leaps ahead and anticipates the next question. In this case, I think, obviously she’s very well familiar with Exxon Valdez. Not only that, it impacts her family. It impacts every single Alaskan, and so she is very familiar with it. I think she just starts getting to, ‘OK, so I bring up Exxon. What’s next?’ And she starts then getting into this battle in the weeds. So, I think, she is working her hardest to answer the questions, at the same time that she’s also jumping ahead and jumping to the next question, before she’s answering the first.”

In case you missed that, Stapleton said that Palin is so astute — she knew this case so well — that she had already moved on to the next question in her head.

OK, fair enough. Let’s just have another look at that video and see if it looks like Palin had already moved on in her mind.

Hmmmm…Yeah, I’m probably going to have to go ahead and disagree with you there, Meg.

But I will give you an ‘A’ for creativity.