article

The Exxon Valdez oil spill was the most devastating environmental disaster to occur at sea in history. Its remote location (accessible only by helicopter and boat) made government and industry response efforts difficult, and severely taxed existing plans for response. The region is a habitat for salmon, sea otters, seals, and sea birds.

Early stages of the spill

On March 23, 1989, the oil tanker Exxon Valdez departed from the Valdez oil terminal in Valdez, Alaska (on its 28th voyage), heading south through Prince William Sound, with a full load (52 million gallons) of oil. Captain Joseph Hazelwood radioed to the Coast Guard station that he would be changing course in order to avoid some growlers, small icebergs which had drifted into the sound from the Columbia Glacier. The captain received permission to move into the northbound lane. Before retiring to his cabin, Captain Hazelwood instructed his third mate Gregory Cousins to "start coming back into the lanes" once the ship was abeam Busby Island Light, some 2 minutes ahead.

Although Cousins did give the instructions to the helmsman, a relapsed alcoholic, to steer the vessel to the right, the vessel was not turning sharply enough and at 12:04 a.m. on March 24, the vessel hit Bligh Reef. It is not known whether Cousins gave the orders too late or the helmsman did not follow instructions properly.

The spilled oil affected 1,900 km of Alaskan coastline. Although Exxon's initial report of 10.8 million gallons (40,900 m³) of oil spilled has been widely accepted, other sources estimate the spill at 35 million gallons (110,000 m³)**.

Cleanup measures

A trial burn was 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 afterward 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. A private company applied dispersants on March 24 with a helicopter and dispersant bucket. Because there was not enough wave action to mix the dispersant with the oil in the water, their use was discontinued.

Legal Battles

$287 million for actual damages and $5 billion for punitive damages was awarded by an Anchorage jury in 1994. The punitive damages amount was based on 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 amount. 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 not grossly excessive.

Exxon appealed again, sending the case back to court to be considered in regard to a recent Supreme Court ruling in a similar case, which caused Judge Holland to actually increase the punitive damages to $4.5 billion, plus interest.

Exxon is again appealing, some seventeen years after the incident. The case currently sits in the 9th Circuit Appellate Court, and oral arguments were heard on January 27, 2006; a ruling is expected by September of 2006. *

Exxon's official position states 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 civil and criminal charges related to the case. However in court it was argued that allowing a "known drunk" to captain the ship was reprehensible.

Some factors that may be considered in the current ongoing legal battles are:

  • Although Exxon acted admirably in paying for cleanup efforts, they also subsequently recovered a significant portion of their cleanup and legal expenses through insurance claims, tax writeoffs, and by an increase in the price of their products. ExxonMobil's position remains that since they voluntarily paid out a large amount of money up-front, additional punitive measures are not justified.
  • The original $5 billion amount was based on annual profits around 1989. If the punitive fine were based on 2005 profits, assuming roughly the same ratio, the penalty would be about $30 billion (not accounting for inflation).
  • Exxon immediately set aside the amount of $5 billion, and has been collecting interest on that amount since 1994. By now, the amount of interest earned on that amount may be larger than the original punitive damages were in the first place.
  • Exxon made an agreement with the Seattle Seven, which will result in them recovering around $750 million of any punitive damages they eventually have to pay.
  • $4.5 billion in 1989 dollars is more than $7 billion in 2005 dollars, due to inflation.
  • Exxon corporation's reported disaster response did not effectively remove much of the lost oil that washed onto the shores of coastal Alaska
The Exxon Valdez damages assessment is notably important in the environmental resource in question, an assessment reached with the use of contingent valuation techniques.

The Ship

In the aftermath of the Exxon Valdez incident U.S. Congress passed the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, including a clause prohibiting vessels that had caused oil spills of more than 1 million US gallons (3,800 m³). In April 1998 the company argued in a legal action against government that the ship should be allowed back to Valdez, since the regulation was unfairly directed at Exxon alone (no other ships meet this criterion). In addition, requirements were made for a gradual phase in of a double-hull design, providing an additional layer between the oil tanks and the ocean.

The Exxon Valdez supertanker was towed to San Diego, arriving on July 10 and repairs began in July 30, 1989. Approximately 1,600 tons of steel were removed and replaced. In June 1990 the tanker, renamed SeaRiver Mediterranean, left harbor after $30 million of repairs.

Environmental impact

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 sea birds, 2,800 sea otters, 300 harbor seals, 250 bald eagles, up to 22 orcas, and billions of salmon and herring eggs. Despite a thorough cleanup, and little visual evidence apparent even only one year later (in areas frequented by humans), the effects of the spill continue to be felt today. In the long term, reductions in population have been seen in various ocean animals, including stunted growth in pink salmon populations. Sea otters and ducks also showed higher death rates in following years, partly because they ingested contaminated creatures. The animals also were exposed to oil when they dug up their prey in dirty soil. Researchers said some shoreline habitats, such as contaminated mussel beds, could take up to 30 years to recover. While it will take years for a solid long term study, some interim effects have already been noted;
  • Rockweed - The Rockweed is once again growing on boulders where the spill occurred.
  • Salmon - Pink Salmon Harvests have varied in the years since the spill.

External links

Worst Pollution Disasters

Europe The worst pollution disaster in Europe to date was the 1991 sinking of the Haven an oil tanker loaded with 144,000 tonnes of crude oil and owned by Troodos shipping a company owned by Stelios Haji-Ioannou. 5 people were killed and for the next 12 years the Meditteranean coast of Italy and France have been polluted especially around Genoa and St Tropez. Stelios was prosecuted and charged with manslaughter and bribery. More Details *

References

  • Alaska Oil Spill Commission. 1990. Spill: The Wreck of the Exxon Valdez. Final Report. Juneau: State of Alaska. 1990.
  • National Transportation Safety Board. 1990.Marine Accident Report: Grounding of the U.S. Tankship Exxon Valdez: on Bligh Reef, Prince William Sound, near Valdez, Alaska, March 24, 1989. Washington, D.C.: NTSB. NTSB/MAR-90/04.
  • Piper, E. 1993. The Exxon Valdez Oil Spill: Final Report, State of Alaska Response. Anchorage: Alaska Dept. of Environmental Conservation.
  • U.S. Coast Guard. 1993. T/V Exxon Valdez oil spill: Federal On Scene Coordinator's report. Vol. 1. Washington, D.C.: Dept. of Transportation.

Disasters in the United States | Environmental disasters | ExxonMobil | Oil spills

Витік нафти з танкера Ексон Вальдез

 

This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the "Exxon Valdez oil spill".

Home Page • arts • business • computers • games • health • hospitals • home • kids & teens • news • physicians • recreation• reference • regional • science • shopping • society • sports • world