The locals are right to be pissed. But the logic seems a bit flawed... when you spend 2.1 billion in funding and then write it off on taxes, you are not saving

The locals are right to be pissed. But the logic seems a bit flawed... when you spend 2.1 billion in funding and then write it off on taxes, you are not saving 2.1 billion, you are saving YourTaxRate% of 2.1 billion, right? The environment is lucky that it was Exxon who made the mistake of hiring an incompetent and overworked crew (per NTSB); they had more resources to deal with the consequences of an (allegedly?) drunk captain than smaller firms. I had a PhD relative working at Exxon whose work was halted and spent a year or two of his life working on the mess; not sure if that was part of the 2.1 billion or in addition to it. Certainly there was non-financial opportunity cost not even measured. Like "Fire safety codes written in blood", the international requirement for oil tankers to have double hulls ensued.