It doesn't seem like it's been almost 20 years since the devastating oil spill that hit Prince William Sound, Alaska, but it has been, and finally, 19 years later, Exxon Mobil (NYSE: XOM) has started to send out lawsuit settlements to those affected by the spill.

In the first decision on the settlement, the company was ordered back in 1994 to pay damages of $5 billion for its role in the environmental disaster. But after years and years of legal battles, the company was able to first get the $5 billion cut in half, and then this June had the damages reduced yet again, down to $507 million.

The payments come with a bitter-sweet taste, as many of the plaintiffs are glad that something is being paid, but feel that the sums they are getting fall far short of what should have been owed to them.

Oil giant Exxon Mobil (NYSE: XOM) got some good news today as the Supreme Court has decided to hear the company's appeal against this summer's ruling over its liability from the Exxon Valdez oil spill back in 1989.

Over the summer, the company was hit with a $2.5 billion fine, but it has argued that it should not have to pay up. It is estimated that with interest, the total amount could actually balloon closer to $4.5 billion.

The Exxon Valdez disaster was caused when the Valdez, loaded with 53 million gallons of oil, ran aground on a reef in Alaska's Prince William Sound. The result was 11 million gallons of oil polluting more than 1,200 miles of Alaskan shoreline, the worst oil spill in U.S. history.

At the heart of the whole debate is one man, Captain Joseph Hazelwood, who was accused to have been under the influence of alcohol at the time of the accident. Exxon Mobil contends that it should not be held responsible for the mistakes of a captain that violated all company policies, but opponents are not buying that argument. The plantiffs argue that Exxon Mobil was aware that Hazelwood had a drinking problem and still allowed him to captain the ship.

Last month I wrote about the possibility that BP p.l.c ADR (BP) may have knowingly turned a blind eye to conditions in its Prudhoe Bay pipelines that could have prevented the whole mess from occurring in the first place. At the time, these reports were mainly coming from employees, but now accusations have resumed and things aren't looking to great for the oil mogul.

Today the country's top regulator for pipelines backed up these accusations, saying that the company failed to take steps common in the industry to repair corrosion that they were warned about in their pipelines. I must admit that I am not too surprised with this recent news. I have written a lot of BP and the more I have read about the company the more I have become weary of just what exactly has been going on up in Alaska.

The company was hit with a couple pretty nasty statements today from lawmakers on both sides of the aisle:

• Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas (chairman of the full regulatory committee): "BP's policies are as rusty as its pipelines." And he further went on to raise the question of whether or not BP should be allowed to continue to run the Prudhoe Bay pipeline
• Rep. Gary Welden, R-Ore. : was quoted as saying that BP actually stood for "broken pipeline."
• Rep. Diana DeGette, D-Colo.: "I applaud BP for trying to move beyond petroleum, but maybe it should start by sticking to the basics and begin to focus on rudimentary pipe maintenance."