From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Exxon Valdez oil spill occurred in Prince William Sound, Alaska, United States, on March 24, 1989. It is considered one of the most devastating man-made environmental disasters ever to occur at sea. As significant as the Exxon Valdez spill was, it ranks well down on the list of the world's largest oil spills in terms of volume released.^[1] However, Prince William Sound's remote location (accessible only by helicopter and boat) made government and industry response efforts difficult and severely taxed existing plans for response. The region was a habitat for salmon, sea otters, seals, and seabirds. The vessel spilled 10.8 million U.S. gallons (40.9 million liters) of Prudhoe Bay crude oil into the sea, and the oil eventually covered 11,000 square miles (28,000 km²) of ocean.^[2]

Contents 1 The accident 2 Cleanup measures and environmental consequences 3 Litigation 4 The aftermath 5 Other consequences 6 External links 7 References

[edit] The accident

The oil tanker Exxon Valdez departed the Valdez oil terminal in Alaska at 9:12 pm on March 23, 1989 with 53 million U.S. gallons of crude oil bound for Washington. A harbor pilot guided the ship through the Valdez Narrows before departing the ship and returning control to Joseph Hazelwood, the ship's master. The ship maneuvered out of the shipping lane to avoid icebergs. Following the maneuver and sometime after 11 pm, Hazelwood departed the wheel house and was in his stateroom at the time of the accident. He left Third Mate Gregory Cousins in charge of the wheel house and Able Seaman Robert Kagan at the helm with instructions to return to the shipping lane at a prearranged point. Exxon Valdez failed to return to the shipping lanes and struck Bligh Reef at around 12:04 am March 24, 1989.^[2]

According to official reports, the ship carried 53,094,510 U.S. gallons (44,210,430 imp gal/200,984,600 L) of oil, of which 10.8 million U.S. gallons (9.0 million imp gal/41 million L)^[3] were spilled into the Prince William Sound.^[4] This figure has become the consensus estimate of the spill's volume, as it has been accepted by the State of Alaska's Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council,^[2] the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,^[1] and environmental groups such as Greenpeace and the Sierra Club.^[5][6] Some groups, such as Defenders of Wildlife, dispute the official estimates, maintaining that the volume of the spill has been underreported.^[7]

[edit] Cleanup measures and environmental consequences

The first cleanup response was through the use of a dispersant, a surfactant and solvent mixture. A private company applied dispersant on 24 March with a helicopter and dispersant bucket. Because there was not enough wave action to mix the dispersant with the oil in the water, the use of the dispersant was discontinued. One trial burn was also conducted during the early stages of the spill, in a region of the spill isolated from the rest by a fire-resistant boom. The test was relatively successful, but because of unfavorable weather no additional burning was attempted in this cleanup effort. Mechanical cleanup was started shortly afterwards using booms and skimmers, but the skimmers were not readily available during the first 24 hours following the spill, and thick oil and kelp tended to clog the equipment.^[4]

Exxon was widely criticized for its slow response to cleaning up the disaster and John Devens, the mayor of Valdez, has said his community felt betrayed by Exxon's inadequate response to the crisis.^[8] Working with the United States Coast Guard, which officially led the response, Exxon mounted a cleanup effort that exceeded in cost, scope and thoroughness any previous oil spill cleanup. More than 11,000 Alaska residents, along with some Exxon employees, worked throughout the region to try to restore the environment.

Because Prince William Sound contained many rocky coves where the oil collected, the decision was made to displace it with high-pressure hot water. However, this also displaced and destroyed the microbial populations on the shoreline; many of these organisms (e.g. plankton) are the basis of the coastal marine food chain, and others (e.g. certain bacteria and fungi) are capable of facilitating the biodegradation of oil. At the time, both scientific advice and public pressure was to clean everything, but since then, a much greater understanding of natural and facilitated remediation processes has developed, due somewhat in part to the opportunity presented for study by the Exxon Valdez spill. Despite the extensive cleanup attempts, a study conducted by NOAA determined that as of early 2007 more than 26,000 U.S. gallons (22,000 imp gal/98,000 L) of oil remain in the sandy soil of the contaminated shoreline, declining at a rate of less than 4% per year.^[9]

In 1992, Exxon released a video titled Scientists and the Alaska Oil Spill. It was provided to schools with the label "A Video for Students". Critics say this video is reputed to misrepresent the clean-up process.^[10]

Both the long- and short-term effects of the oil spill have been studied comprehensively. Thousands of animals died immediately; the best estimates include 250,000 to as many as 500,000 seabirds, at least 1,000 sea otters, approximately 12 river otters, 300 harbor seals, 250 bald eagles, and 22 orcas, as well as the destruction of billions of salmon and herring eggs.^[3][10] Due to a thorough cleanup, little visual evidence of the event remained in areas frequented by humans just 1 year later. However, the effects of the spill continue to be felt today. Overall reductions in population have been seen in various ocean animals, including stunted growth in pink salmon populations.^[11] Sea otters and ducks also showed higher death rates in following years, partially because they ingested prey from contaminated soil and from ingestion of oil residues on hair due to grooming.^[12]

Almost 15 years after the spill, a team of scientists at the University of North Carolina found that the effects are lasting far longer than expected.^[11] The team estimates some shoreline habitats may take up to 30 years to recover.^[3] Exxon Mobil denies any concerns over this, stating that they anticipated a remaining fraction that they assert will not cause any long-term ecological impacts, according to the conclusions of 350 peer-reviewed studies.^[12] However, a study from scientists from NOAA concluded that this contamination can produce chronic low-level exposure, discourage subsistence where the contamination is heavy, and decrease the "wilderness character" of the area.^[9]

[edit] Litigation

In 1994, in the case of Baker vs. Exxon, an Anchorage jury awarded $287 million for actual damages and $5 billion for punitive damages. The punitive damages amount was equal to a single year's profit by Exxon at that time.

Exxon appealed the ruling, and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the original judge, Russel Holland, to reduce the punitive damages. On December 6, 2002, the judge announced that he had reduced the damages to $4 billion, which he concluded was justified by the facts of the case and was not grossly excessive. Exxon appealed again and the case returned to court to be considered in light of a recent Supreme Court ruling in a similar case, which caused Judge Holland to increase the punitive damages to $4.5 billion, plus interest.

After more appeals, and oral arguments heard by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on 27 January 2006, the damages award was cut to $2.5 billion on 22 December 2006. The court cited recent Supreme Court rulings relative to limits on punitive damages.

Exxon appealed again. On 23 May 2007, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals denied ExxonMobil's request for a third hearing and let stand its ruling that Exxon owes $2.5 billion in punitive damages. Exxon then appealed to the Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case.^[13] On February 27, 2008, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments for 90 minutes. A decision is expected before the court's term ends in July. Justice Samuel Alito, who owns between $100,000 and $250,000 in Exxon stock, recused himself from the case.^[14]

Exxon's official position is that punitive damages greater than $25 million are not justified because the spill resulted from an accident, and because Exxon spent an estimated $2 billion cleaning up the spill and a further $1 billion to settle related civil and criminal charges. Attorneys for the plaintiffs contended that Exxon bore responsibility for the accident because the company "put a drunk in charge of a tanker in Prince William Sound."^[15]

Exxon recovered a significant portion of clean-up and legal expenses through insurance claims and tax deductions for the loss of the Valdez.^[16][17] Also, in 1991, Exxon made a quiet, separate financial settlement of damages with a group of seafood producers known as the Seattle Seven for the disaster's effect on the Alaskan seafood industry. The agreement granted $63.75 million to the Seattle Seven, but stipulated that the seafood companies would have to repay almost all of any punitive damages awarded in other civil proceedings. The $5 billion in punitive damages was awarded later, and the Seattle Seven's share could be high as $750 million. If the damages award holds, they could have to give the $750 million back to Exxon, and it then would be unavailable to the other plaintiffs. In effect, this would give Exxon a 'savings' of $750 million. Other plaintiffs have objected to this secret arrangement,^[18] and when it came to light, Judge Holland ruled that Exxon should have told the jury at the start that an agreement had already been made, so the jury would know exactly how much Exxon would have to pay.^[19]

[edit] The aftermath

The cause of the incident was investigated by the National Transportation Safety Board, which identified the four following factors as contributing to the grounding of the vessel:

• The third mate failed to properly maneuver the vessel, possibly due to fatigue and excessive workload.
• The master failed to provide navigation watch, possibly due to impairment under the influence of alcohol.
• Exxon Shipping Company failed to supervise the master and provide a rested and sufficient crew for the Exxon Valdez.
• The United States Coast Guard failed to provide an effective vessel traffic system.^[4]

The Board made a number of recommendations, such as changes to the work patterns of Exxon crew in order to address the causes of the accident.^[4]

In response to the spill, the United States Congress passed the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA). The legislation included a clause that prohibits any vessel that, after March 22, 1989, has caused an oil spill of more than one million U.S. gallons (3,800 m³) in any marine area, from operating in Prince William Sound.^[20]

In April 1998, the company argued in a legal action against the Federal government that the ship should be allowed back into Alaskan waters. Exxon claimed OPA was effectively a bill of attainder, a regulation that was unfairly directed at Exxon alone.^[21] In 2002, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against Exxon. As of 2002, OPA had prevented 18 ships from entering Prince William Sound.^[22]

OPA also set a schedule for the gradual phase in of a double hull design, providing an additional layer between the oil tanks and the ocean. While a double hull would likely not have prevented the Valdez disaster, a Coast Guard study estimated that it would have cut the amount of oil spilled by 60 percent.^[23]

The Exxon Valdez supertanker was towed to San Diego, arriving on July 10. Repairs began on July 30. Approximately 1,600 short tons (1,500 metric tons) of steel were removed and replaced. In June 1990 the tanker, renamed S/R Mediterranean, left harbor after $30 million of repairs.^[22] It was still sailing as of August 2007. The vessel is current owned by SeaRiver Maritime, a wholly owned subsidiary of ExxonMobil.

[edit] Other consequences

The Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers International Union, representing approximately 40,000 workers nationwide, announced opposition to drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) until Congress enacted a comprehensive national energy policy. In the aftermath of the spill, Alaska governor Steve Cowper issued an executive order requiring two tugboats to escort every loaded tanker from Valdez out through Prince William Sound to Hinchinbrook Entrance. As the plan evolved in the 1990s, one of the two routine tugboats was replaced with a 210 foot (64 m) Escort Response Vehicle (ERV). The majority of tankers at Valdez are still single-hulled, but Congress has enacted legislation requiring all tankers to be double-hulled by 2015.

In 1991, following the collapse of the local marine population (particularly clams, herring, and seals) the Chugach Native American group went bankrupt^[24]

Many of the real estate appraisal methods used to value contaminated property and brownfields were developed as a result of and following the spill. The use of survey research (e.g. contingent valuation and conjoint measurement) became a well-accepted appraisal method as a result of the complex valuation problems associated with contamination.^[25]

According to several studies funded by the state of Alaska, the spill had both short- and long term economic effects. These included the loss of recreational sports fisheries, reduced tourism, and an estimate of what economists call "existence value," which is the value to the public of a pristine Prince William Sound.^[26][27][28]

Following the advent of WikiScanner, it came to light that changes had been made from within Exxon Mobil which altered the descriptions of the oil spill in this article, and downplayed its severity.[1]

[edit] External links

• Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council
• ExxonMobil updates and news on Valdez
• Exxon Valdez oil spill at National Ocean Service
• EVOS Damage Assessment and Restoration at National Marine Fisheries Service
• Exxon Valdez at United States Environmental Protection Agency
• Exxon Valdez oil spill at Encyclopedia of Earth
• The story behind the oil spill verdict – originally published in San Diego Union-Tribune
• Exxon Oil Spill's Cleanup Crews Share Years of Illness – originally published in Los Angeles Times

[edit] References