Menu
24 Mar 2009

Twenty Years Later, Impacts of the Exxon Valdez Linger

Two decades after the Exxon Valdez spilled 11 million gallons of crude oil into Alaska’s waters, the Prince William Sound, its fishermen, and its wildlife have still not fully recovered.
By doug struck

Shortly after the Exxon Valdez oil spill gripped the world with images of an environmental assault, the CEO of the oil company predicted that in a few years there would be “nothing” to evidence the disaster.

He was wrong. Today, 20 years after the largest spill in U.S. waters, the oil that gushed from the hull of the Exxon Valdez is still having effects.

Sea otters once again play in the waters of Alaska’s Prince William Sound, and salmon and some other species have rebounded. But killer whale populations have not recovered, and the huge schools of whirling herring that fed both fishermen and animals have not returned, reminding scientists that nature’s responses are complex and unpredictable.

Humans, too, have had a mixed response. Maritime safety agencies mandated key improvements: single-hulled tankers are finally on their way out, and some places, like the Alaskan town of Valdez, have created impressive spill response teams. But our thirst for oil — coupled with the steady disappearance of Arctic sea ice — is now prompting ambitions to drill across the Arctic, where a spill could bring a greater disaster.

The jeweled beauty of the waters off Cordova and Valdez was disfigured on March 24, 1989, by the stain of 11 million gallons of crude oil, pouring from
Alaska
Wikimedia
A government-created panel concluded that high-pressure hoses used on Prince William Sound beaches during the cleanup did more harm than good.
a gash in the single hull of the Exxon Valdez. The ship had bellied into a well-known reef as its captain slept off a vodka bender and, at the wheel, his third mate missed a turn.

The spill remains the most costly maritime accident in the world. Volunteers rushed to Valdez to scrub otters and ducks with gentle soap, only to watch them die. Exxon papered the towns with money, hiring fishermen to wash oil off the beaches. The company soon declared the once-pristine area largely healed, even as its creatures continued to die.

Exxon also sent waves of lawyers to fight the court awards from the spill, finally last year winning a U.S. Supreme Court decision allowing the company to pay about ten cents for each dollar of the original award to fishermen and others affected by the spill.

The most positive results from the disaster involve oil tanker safety. In 1990, the U.S. Congress passed the Oil Pollution Act, requiring a phase-out of single-hulled oil tankers in U.S. waters by 2010 — a belated acknowledgment that a double-hulled tanker would have contained much of the oil lost from the Exxon Valdez. The Act set up a liability fund, toughened spill disaster plans, and created a mechanism for citizen-led oversight committees to police safety claims by shippers.

Special tugs now usher tankers in and out of Valdez to the open sea. Response teams armed with pre-positioned equipment have successfully handled smaller spills at Valdez. The Coast Guard, which failed to watch the errant course of the Exxon Valdez, now has a sophisticated satellite tracking system for maritime traffic past the straits.

“We certainly suffered and paid the price, but now we have the world’s most robust oil response anywhere in the world,” said Tom Copeland, who fished from Cordova and was a member of the citizen’s group that insisted on safety improvements.

Worldwide, the frequency of major accidents in oil shipping has dropped, and insurance experts say safety has improved. The requirement for double-hulled tankers spurred the shipping industry to modernize with much safer ships. Some oil companies, like Arco and BP, now use tankers that exceed the legal requirements, with redundant power and steering systems to minimize failures.

“On the whole, if you look at the long view of history,” said Aldo Chircop, a maritime law expert at Dalhousie Law School in Halifax, “the Valdez spill has pushed standards up.”

The International Maritime Organization eventually followed the U.S. lead,
A 2001 federal survey found that oil remained on or under more than half of the sound’s beaches.
acting to phase out single-hulled oil tankers between 2010 and 2015. But it did so only after Europe’s own versions of the Valdez spill. The tanker Erika sank in 1999, coating French beaches, and the Prestige split up at sea in 2002, spreading heavy fuel oil onto Spanish coasts.

About 300 single-hulled tankers remain on the high seas, including the patched Exxon Valdez, renamed the Sea River Mediterranean. It is prohibited from entering Prince William Sound.

Exxon insists it has done its duty by paying $3.8 billion in cleanup costs and damages. The company reached a settlement with the state and federal governments in 1991 and paid nearly $1 billion, mostly for habitat and restoration programs. In addition, it has paid more than $2 billion in cleanup costs and another $507 million to compensate 11,000 fishermen, landowners, and businesses for their losses.

But in a class-action suit by about 32,000 plaintiffs, ranging from cannery workers to native Alaskans, a jury decided in 1994, that Exxon should pay punitive damages equal to about a year’s worth of Exxon’s profits, or $5 billion.

Exxon balked and embarked on a long-running legal battle. In 2006, a federal appeals court cut the award to $2.5 billion. Exxon appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing the punitive damages were excessive and a “windfall” to the plaintiffs. In a decision that set legal precedent in maritime law, the Supreme Court last June ruled 5-3 that punitive awards should not exceed actual damages, effectively limiting Exxon’s additional liability to $507 million.

“What industry learned is all they have to do is stall and they can get the Supreme Court to let them wiggle out of the punitive damages,” said Riki Ott, a marine biologist whose career in commercial fishing ended with the spill.

Melanie Duchin, a Greenpeace coordinator in Anchorage, said, “Most Alaskans are in favor of resource development. But there still is a lot of outrage with Exxon about how the plaintiffs had to wait to get such small punitive damages. There is a very bad taste in people’s mouths about Exxon.”

For many years Exxon has minimized the effects of the spill. In a statement last week responding to queries on the 20th anniversary, the company asserted that “there has been no long-term damage caused by the spilled oil,” adding, “The ecosystem in Prince William Sound today is healthy, robust and thriving.”

Exxon said it employed 13,000 people in the clean-up effort. But the dramatic scenes of hired workers washing oil off beaches turned out to be images of futility. Ott, who has written about the spill, says she can dig a hole in a beach on the sound and watch as it fills with oil. A 2001 federal survey found that oil remained on or under more than half the sound’s beaches.

Estimates of the total amount of oil that remains in the environment have varied, but the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council, a government-created monitor, concluded that the oil disappears at less than 4 percent per year. At that rate, the council said, the oil will “take decades and possibly centuries to disappear entirely.”

Since the spill, Prince William Sound has been among the most intensively studied of environments. But the more scientists have learned, the less they realize they understand how different species have been affected.

The Trustee Council found 17 of 27 monitored species have not recovered.
Wildlife
Wikimedia
Scientists estimated that as many as 250,000 seabirds died in the days after the spill.
For example, researchers concluded that the high-pressure hoses used on the beaches did more harm than good. The pressure destroyed interlocking layers of gravel and flushed away fine sediments that scientists now know provided a kind of armor for the beaches during storms, helping to protect clams and mussels. The damage to the shellfish, in turn, slowed the recovery of otters, which feed on the mollusks.

Natural variability has increased the difficulty of calculating the spill’s effects. Wild pink salmon, for example, are listed as a “recovered” species, evidenced by a 2007 run estimated at 11.6 million fish. Their numbers, aided by a large hatchery operation, have rebounded from a low of 1.3 million three years after the spill. But it is hard to determine what is normal: pink salmon in the Sound before the spill varied from a high of 23.5 million fish in 1984 to a low of 2.1 million in 1988.

And while salmon are seen as a success story, the ecosystem in the sound is crippled by the failure to see a return of the huge schools of Pacific herring, which were hit by the spill just as they were spawning. The herring fishery, which provided up to half of the income of Cordova fishermen, has been closed to commercial fishing except for a few brief periods since the spill.

Scientists say they do not really understand why the herring stock has not rebounded. But they do believe that failure has reduced populations of seabirds that feed on the small fish. Investigators believe that 100,000 to 300,000 of the estimated 1 million seabirds in Prince William Sound died initially. Different species have recovered at different rates — murres have gradually returned in large numbers but other species like Harlequin Ducks and Black Oystercatchers have not — and the waterfowl may not fully recover until the herring are again healthy.

The food chain has magnified the effect of the spill in other insidious ways. Orcas, or killer whales, in the sound are afflicted by bio-accumulation of toxins. Fourteen out of the 36 killer whales in the resident Prince William Sound pod disappeared shortly after the spill. Researchers believe their lungs were seared by the toxic fumes, though orca carcasses usually sink, so no autopsy was possible.

The resident pod, which remains in the Sound and primarily eats fish, slowly is recovering. Another Prince William Sound pod of “transient”
“It’s quiet in Prince William Sound,” said one fisherman. “The ecosystem took one hell of a hit.”
killer whales mostly eats sea mammals. As the chemicals in the spilled oil were ingested by animals higher on the food chain, the amount of chemicals, called polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, accumulated in marine mammals. Researchers theorize that may help doom the transient orca pod at the top of the food chain. They have “no hope of recovery,” the Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council researchers concluded.

Fisherman Tom Copeland does not need the scientists to tell him that his old fishing grounds have not recovered. “It’s quiet in Prince William sound,” he said. “You don’t hear the birds. You don’t see the wildlife that you used to see. The ecosystem took a hell of a hit.”

Now, with Arctic sea ice disappearing, global oil companies are making plans to drill throughout the Arctic Ocean, which is estimated to contain as much oil as Venezuela and as much natural gas as Russia. The dangers of drilling and transportation in the Arctic are great. Dispersants used by oil companies do not work well at or near freezing temperatures. Booms to contain a spill cannot be used with icebergs floating in the water. The skimmer boats, tugs, and other equipment needed for quick response will be useless if they are parked far from a spill in an ice-locked inlet.

“Once the oil is in the water, you have lost most of the battle — you can’t recover it,” said Rick Steiner, a University of Alaska professor and an oil spill consultant. “I have worked on these things all over the world in the last 20 years and the take-home message is you can’t clean them up.”

To many conservationists and some residents of Prince William Sound, the lesson of the Exxon Valdez is clear: Until we stop focusing on extracting oil from ever-more remote environments, and concentrate instead on developing renewable sources of energy, another major spill in the Arctic is inevitable.

“The only real way to eliminate the risks to the environment is to get off of oil,” concludes Duchin, of Greenpeace. “It’s going to continue to happen until we break our addiction to fossil fuels.”

Says Ott, the biologist, “As long as we are going to be using this stuff we are going to be spilling it. It goes with the territory.”

ABOUT THE AUTHOR


Doug Struck covered the Valdez oil spill for the Baltimore Sun and has reported frequently from the Arctic for The Washington Post during 30 years as a journalist. He has been a foreign and national correspondent reporting from six continents and 50 states, a Harvard Nieman fellow and Pulitzer Prize finalist. At The Washington Post, he specialized in global warming issues in assignments ranging from the Northwest Passage and Greenland to melting glaciers on the Andes Mountains. He now freelances and teaches journalism at Boston University.
MORE BY THIS AUTHOR

SHARE: Tweet | Digg | Del.icio.us | Reddit | Mixx | Facebook | Stumble Upon

COMMENTS


I was 14 when this spill took place. I have never
forgotten and never will.
Posted by Matthew Gamble on 24 Mar 2009


Whatever happened to those oil-eating bacteria? I've been hearing about those since before the Exxon Valdez, but I have yet to hear about them ever being released on anything but an experimental basis.

The idea was to release these oil-eating bacteria, let them multiply on the oil, and then have them die off or get eaten up by local wildlife when the oil was gone. Whatever happened to that plan?
Posted by Scott Baker on 24 Mar 2009


The Exxon Valdez oil spill was an ecological disaster. The mandatory use of double-hulled tankers is a good result of a very bad situation. Those who say we should get off oil are not realistic. We currently use 24 million barrels a day to power our transportation, plastics industry, heat out homes etc, etc. No viable alternatives can replace this oil.

Other than conservation and hybrid or plug-in cars which will help, how is it possible to "get off oil"?

To stop the risk of spills we could develop onshore and offshore oil deposits that require no tankers. We could develop shale oil which requires no tankers. We could develop coal to oil which requires no tankers. Anything would be better than blocking these sources and requiring our dependence on foreign oil, which somehow many people don't seem to realize has no way to get here (other than that from Canada and Mexico) other than by supertanker. Blocking domestic resources forces more tankers, far more.

Posted by Dahun on 24 Mar 2009


Of course the Exxon Valdez spill should be condemned, but it remains minor compared to what happens naturally off the California coast.

"It is estimated that oil seepage for a single 6-mile stretch, including Coal Oil Point, averages 10,000 gallons of oil each day (240 barrels). Every 12 months about 86,000 barrels of oil seep into the ocean—the equivalent of the quantity of oil spilled in the 1969 oil spill in Santa Barbara. Since 1970, the quantity of oil that naturally seeps into the Santa Barbara Channel equals ~ 31 "1969" oil spills."

http://www.soscalifornia.org/problem.html

Why not set up drill rigs and intercept the oil oozing from the ocean floor? Well, because it's California, that's why.
Posted by Ray on 25 Mar 2009


How much fuel is used by the Rainbow Warrior, the Argus, the Esperanza, the Arctic Sunrise and the host of smaller vessels utilized by Greenpeace each year sailing around the world on a mission to ask us to use less fossil fuel?


Posted by Dahun on 27 Mar 2009


From the article: "Researchers concluded that the high-pressure hoses used on the beaches did more harm than good. The pressure destroyed interlocking layers of gravel and flushed away fine sediments that scientists now know provided a kind of armor for the beaches during storms, helping to protect clams and mussels. The damage to the shellfish, in turn, slowed the recovery of otters, which feed on the mollusks."

Nice to hear some environmentalists acknowledge they were wrong.
Posted by f1fan on 27 Mar 2009


What continuing efforts are being conducted to clean up the Prince William Sound?

What ever became of the inebriated oil tanker captain?

Besides high-pressured hoses, what alternative methods could have been used to clean up the
beaches?
Posted by Dr. Henry Kissinger's Number One Fan on 29 Mar 2009


I am just interested in how these oil spills continue to happen. Why is it "with the territory"? The sheer value of the oil being transported surely would mean that they would be more careful.

Posted by scott henderson on 30 Dec 2009


Do you know Exxon is still cleaning up the beaches? They haven't left!

Posted by Mary on 29 Apr 2010



 

RELATED ARTICLES


After Steep Decline, Signs of Hope for World’s Sea Turtles
Nearly all sea turtle species have been classified as endangered, with precipitous declines in many populations in recent decades. But new protections, particularly in the U.S. and Central America, are demonstrating that dramatic recovery for these remarkable reptiles is possible.
READ MORE

A Scourge for Coal Miners Stages a Brutal Comeback
Black lung — a debilitating disease caused by inhaling coal dust — was supposed to be wiped out by a landmark 1969 U.S. mine safety law. But a recent study shows that the worst form of the disease now affects a larger share of Appalachian coal miners than at any time since the early 1970s.
READ MORE

Fostering Community Strategies For Saving the World's Oceans
To conservationist Ayana Elizabeth Johnson, getting coastal communities involved in plans to protect their waters is critical for protecting the planet's oceans. In an interview with Yale Environment 360, she talks about her work in one Caribbean island and how it shows how such a strategy can get results.
READ MORE

Electric Power Rights of Way: A New Frontier for Conservation
Often mowed and doused with herbicides, power transmission lines have long been a bane for environmentalists. But that’s changing, as some utilities are starting to manage these areas as potentially valuable corridors for threatened wildlife.
READ MORE

True Altruism: Can Humans Change To Save Other Species?
A grim new census of the world’s dwindling wildlife populations should force us to confront a troubling question: Are humans capable of acting in ways that help other species at a cost to themselves?
READ MORE


SEARCH


Donate to Yale Environment 360


ABOUT

Menu

SUPPORT E360

Menu

TOPICS

Menu

DEPARTMENTS

Menu

HOME PAGE

Menu