The Exxon Valdez oil spill occurred in Prince William Sound, Alaska, March 24, 1989, when Exxon Valdez, an oil tanker owned by Exxon Shipping The company, headed for Long Beach, California, crashed into Blood Reef Prince William Sound at 12:04 am local time and spilled 10.8 million gallons (260,000 bbl/41,000 m 3 ) of crude oil over the next few days. It is considered one of the most destructive human-caused environmental disasters. The Valdez spill is the second largest in US waters, following the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill, in terms of volume released. The remote location of Prince William Sound, which can only be accessed by helicopter, plane or boat, makes government and industry responses difficult and weighs heavily on response plans. This region is the habitat for salmon, sea otters, seals and seabirds. The oil, which was originally extracted in the Prudhoe Bay oil field, eventually covers 1,300 miles (2,100 km) of coastline, and 11,000 square miles (28,000 km 2 ) oceans.
According to the official report, the ship carried 53.09451 million US gallons (1,264,155 bbl; 200,984.6 m 3 ) of oil, which is about 10.8 million gallons (260,000 bbl; 41,000 m 3 ) spill over to Prince William Sound. The estimated figure of 11 million US gallons (260,000 bbl; 42,000 m 3 ) is an estimated spill volume commonly accepted and used by the Alaska State Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Advisory Board, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and environmental groups such as Greenpeace and Sierra Club.
Several factors have been identified as contributing to the incident:
- Exxon Shipping Company fails to supervise the master and provides sufficient rested crew for Exxon Valdez . NTSB finds this widespread throughout the industry, encouraging safety recommendations for Exxon and the industry.
- The third pair failed to maneuver the ship properly, possibly due to excessive fatigue or workload.
- The Exxon Shipping Company failed to keep up with the Raytheon Collision Avoidance System (RAYCAS) radar, which, when functional, will show the upcoming third pair of collisions with Bligh Reef by detecting a "radar reflector", placed on the rock into the next interior from Bligh Reef for the purpose of keeping the ship on track. This cause is only identified by Greg Palast (without evidentiary support) and is not in the official accident report.
Captain Joseph Hazelwood, who reportedly drank much of the night, was not in control when the ship hit a rock. However, as a senior officer, he held command of the ship even though he fell asleep in his bed. Given the other findings, investigative reporter Greg Palast stated in 2008, "Forget the captain drunk fellow Captain Joe Hazelwood, he is under the deck, sleeping from his flag.On the wheel, the third couple will never bump into Bligh Reef has seen RAYCAS radar but the radar was not turned on.In fact, the tanker radar was left undamaged and defective for more than a year before the disaster, and Exxon's management knew it was too expensive to repair and operate. "Exxon blames Captain Hazelwood on the tanker's grounds.
Other factors, according to an MIT course entitled "Software System Security" by Professor Nancy G. Leveson, include:
- The ship was not informed that the previous practice of the Coast Guard tracing the ship to Bligh Reef has stopped.
- The oil industry promised, but never installed, the state-of-the-art iceberg monitoring equipment.
- Exxon Valdez is sailing off the normal sea lane to avoid small icebergs thought to be in the area.
- The 1989 tanker crew was half the size of the 1977 crew, working 12 to 14 hours, plus overtime. The crew rushed out of Valdez with oil.
- Coast Guard ship inspection in Valdez was not performed, and staff numbers were reduced.
- Lack of equipment and available personnel inhibits spill cleanup.
This disaster resulted in the International Maritime Organization introducing comprehensive marine pollution prevention rules (MARPOL) through various conventions. The rules are ratified by member states and, under the rules of International Ship Management, ships are operated with the general purpose of "safer vessels and cleaner oceans".
In 2009, Exxon Valdez Captain Joseph Hazelwood offered a "sincere apology" to the people of Alaska, showing that he had been blamed for the disaster: "The real story is out there for anyone who wants to see on facts, but it's not a sexy story and it's not an easy story, "he said. Hazelwood said he felt Alaska always gave him a fair sway.
Video Exxon Valdez oil spill
Cleaning and environmental impact
Chemical powder, a mixture of surfactants and solvents, was applied to the slick by a private company on March 24 by helicopter. But the helicopter did not reach the target. The scientific data on its toxicity is very thin or incomplete. In addition, public acceptance of a widespread new chemical treatment is not available. Landowners, fishing groups, and conservation organizations questioned the use of chemicals on hundreds of miles of coastline when other alternatives may be available. "
According to a report by David Kirby for TakePart, the main component of the Corexit formulation used during cleansing, 2-butoxyethanol, is identified as "one of the agents that causes liver, kidney, lung, nervous system, and blood disorders among cleaning creams." in Alaska after the spill in 1989 Exxon Valdez .
Mechanical cleaning begins immediately afterwards using booms and skimmers, but skimmers are not available for the first 24 hours after spills, and thick oil and seaweed tend to clog equipment. Despite the civic insistence to complete clean, only 10% of the total oil is actually cleaned. Exxon was widely criticized for his slow response to cleaning up the disaster and John Devens, mayor of Valdez, said his community felt betrayed by Exxon's inadequate response to the crisis. More than 11,000 Alaska residents, along with some Exxon employees, work across the region to try to restore the environment.
Since Prince William Sound contains many rocky bays where oil is collected, a decision was made to replace it with high-pressure hot water. However, it also displaces and destroys microbial populations on shorelines; many of these organisms (eg plankton) are the basis of coastal seafood chains, and others (eg bacteria and certain fungi) are able to facilitate oil biodegradation. At the time, both scientific advice and public pressure were to clear things up, but since then, a much greater understanding of the natural and facilitated remediation process has grown, in part because of the opportunities presented for the study by Exxon Valdez spill. Despite extensive cleaning efforts, less than ten percent of the oil recovered and a study conducted by NOAA determined that in early 2007 over 26 thousand US gallons (98 m 3 ) oil remained on sandy soil from contaminated coastline, declining at a rate of less than 4% per year.
Both long-term and short-term effects of the oil spill have been studied. Direct effects include 100,000 deaths to as many as 250,000 seabirds, at least 2,800 sea otters, about 12 streams of beavers, 300 seal ports, 247 bald eagles, and 22 orcas, and a number of unknown salmon and herring.
In 2003, fourteen years after the spill, a team from the University of North Carolina found that the remaining oil lasted much longer than anticipated, which in turn has resulted in more long-term loss of many species than expected. The researchers found that only a few parts per billion, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons cause a long-term increase in mortality rates. They report that "diverse species such as sea otters, harlequin ducks, and killer whales suffer huge losses in the long run and that oiled shell beds and other tidal coastline habitats will take about 30 years to recover."
In 2006, a study conducted by the National Marine Fisheries Service in Juneau found that about 6 miles (9.7 km) of coastline around Prince William Sound was still affected by the oil spill, with 101.6 tons of oil remaining in the area. Exxon Mobil denied concerns over the remaining oil, stating that they anticipate the remaining fraction that they claim will not cause long-term ecological impacts, according to the conclusion of their study: "We have conducted 350 peer-reviewed studies on Prince William Sound, and the study concludes that Prince William Sound has recovered, is healthy and growing. "However, in 2007 a NOAA study concluded that this contamination could result in chronic low-level exposure, reduced subsistence where severe contamination, and reduced" wilderness character "of the area the.
The effects of the spill continue to be felt for many years afterwards. In 2010 it is estimated that there are 23,000 gallons of US (87 m 3 ) of Valdez crude still in the sand and Alaska soil, breaking down to a level estimated at less than 4% per year.
On March 24, 2014, the twenty-fifth anniversary of the spill, NOAA scientists report that some species appear to have recovered, with the sea of ​​newest creature beasts to return to numbers before spill. Scientists who have been monitoring the spill area over the last 25 years report that concern persists in one of the two local orca whale pods, with fears that one pod is eventually dead. Federal scientists estimate that between 16,000 and 21,000 US gallons (61 to 79 m 3 ) oil remains on the beach at Prince William Sound and up to 450 miles (725 km) away. Some oils do not seem to have any biodegradation at all. A USGS scientist who analyzed the remaining oil along the coastline stated that it remained between rocks and between tidal marks. "Mixed oil with sea water and formed emulsion... Abandoned, the surface is crusty but the inside still has the consistency of mayonnaise - or mousse." Alaska state senator Berta Gardner urged Alaska politicians to demand that the US government force ExxonMobil to pay the last $ 92 million ($ 57 million) paid from the court settlement. The main part of the money will be spent on completing oiled beach cleaning and trying to restore a paralyzed herring population.
Maps Exxon Valdez oil spill
Litigation and cleaning costs
In the case of Exxon v. Baker , Anchorage's jury awarded $ 287 million for actual damages and $ 5 billion for damages. To protect themselves if the verdict is confirmed, Exxon earned $ 4.8 billion in credit from J.P. Morgan & amp; Co., which created the first modern credit default swap so they do not have to withhold as much money as reserves against Exxon's default risk.
Meanwhile, Exxon appealed against the ruling, and the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeal ordered court judge Russel Holland to reduce the punitive damages. On December 6, 2002, Holland announced that he had reduced losses of up to $ 4 billion, which he concluded justified by the facts of the case and not too much. Exxon appealed again and the case was returned to the Netherlands for reconsideration given the recent Supreme Court ruling in similar cases. The Netherlands increased compensation to $ 4.5 billion, plus interest.
After more calls, in December 2006, the damage award was cut to $ 2.5 billion. The appeals court cited recent Supreme Court rulings relative to the limits of punitive damages.
Exxon appealed again. On May 23, 2007, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal denied ExxonMobil's request for a third trial and let its decision that Exxon owe $ 2.5 billion in damages. Exxon then appealed to the Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case. On February 27, 2008, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments. Judge Samuel Alito, who at that time, had between $ 100,000 and $ 250,000 in Exxon shares, withdrew from the case. In a decision issued on June 25, 2008, written by Judge David Souter, the court vacated the $ 2.5 billion award and returned the case to a lower court, finding that excessive damage was related to maritime common law. Exxon's actions are considered "worse than negligent but less than evil." The punishment penalty is further reduced to $ 507.5 million. The Court's ruling is that maritime redress should not exceed compensation compensation, backed by a precedent dating from 1818. The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee Patrick J. Leahy has denounced the decision as "someone else in the line of cases where this Supreme Court has misinterpreting the congress's intention to benefit large companies. "
Exxon's official position is a compensation penalty greater than $ 25 million not justified due to accidental spills, and since Exxon spends about $ 2 billion to clean up spills and $ 1 billion more to settle related civil and criminal claims. The lawyer for the plaintiff believes that Exxon assumes responsibility for the accident because the company "drank the liquor in charge of the tanker at Prince William Sound."
Exxon recovered most of its clearance and legal expenditure through insurance claims related to the foundation of Exxon Valdez . Also, in 1991, Exxon made a quiet financial settlement, apart from the damage with a group of seafood producers known as the Seven Seattle for the catastrophic effects on the Alaska seafood industry. The agreement gave $ 63.75 million to Seattle Seven, but determined that seafood companies should pay for almost all punitive damages provided in other civil proceedings. The $ 5 billion in punitive damages are granted later, and the Seattle Seven share could be as high as $ 750 million if a damage award has been held. The other plaintiffs objected to this secret arrangement, and when it was revealed, the Dutch Judge ruled that Exxon should have told the jury at the outset that the agreement had been made, so the jury would know exactly how much Exxon had to pay.
On December 15, 2009, Exxon had paid all $ 507.5 million in damages, including the cost of the lawsuit, plus interest, which was subsequently distributed to thousands of plaintiffs.
In October 1989, Exxon filed a lawsuit against the State of Alaska, alleging that the state had disrupted Exxon's efforts to clean up the oil spill by refusing to approve the use of dispersant chemicals until the evening of the 26th. The state denied the claim, stating that there was a long-standing agreement to allow use of dispersants to clean up spills, so Exxon does not require permission to use them, and that Exxon actually does not have enough dispersant on hand to effectively handle spillage sizes created by Valdez . Exxon filed a claim in October 1990 against Coast Guard, requesting to be reimbursed for clearance fees and damages granted to the plaintiff in any lawsuit filed by the State of Alaska or the federal government against Exxon. The Company claims that the Coast Guard is "entirely or partially responsible" for the spill, as they have granted the seafarers' licenses to Valdez's crew, and because they have given Valdez's permission to leave the shipping lanes to escape the ice. They also reaffirmed claims that Coast Guard has delayed cleaning by refusing to grant permission to immediately use chemical dispersant on the spill.
Political consequences and reform
The Oil Spill Recovery Institute was formed after the United States Congress approved to find a solution. Collaborating with InnoCentive they found a partial solution for oil flow.
Coast Guard Report
A report by the US National Rescue Team summarized the event and made a number of recommendations, such as changes in Exxon crew's work patterns to address the cause of the crash.
Oil Pollution Act 1990
In response to the spill, the United States Congress passed the 1990 Oil Pollution Act (OPA). The law includes a clause prohibiting vessels which, after March 22, 1989, have caused an oil spill of over 1 million million US gallons (3,800 m 3 ) in each marine region, from operating in Prince William Sound.
In April 1998, the company argued in legal action against the Federal government that ships should be allowed back into Alaskan waters. Exxon claims that the OPA is effectively a bill of attainder, a rule that is unfairly aimed at Exxon only. In 2002, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals voted against Exxon. In 2002, the OPA has prevented 18 ships entering Prince William Sound.
OPA also sets the timetable for the phased stage in the double hull design, providing an additional layer between the oil tank and the oceans. While a double stomach is unlikely to prevent the Valdez catastrophe, the Coast Guard study estimates it will reduce the amount of oil spilled up to 60 percent.
The Exxon Valdez supertanker was withdrawn to San Diego, arriving on July 10th. Repairs begin on July 30th. Approximately 1,600 short tons (1,500 tons) of steel have been removed and replaced. In June 1990, the tanker, renamed S/R Mediterranean , left the port after a $ 30 million improvement. It still sailed since January 2010, registered in Panama. The ship was later owned by a Hong Kong company, which operated it under the name Oriental Loneliness . In August 2012, it was stranded in Alang, India and dismantled.
Alaska Rules
In the aftermath of the spill, Alaska Governor Steve Cowper issued an executive order requiring two tugs to escort every tanker loaded from Valdez out through Prince William Sound to the Hinchinbrook Entrance. When the plan evolved in the 1990s, one of two routine tugboats was replaced with a 210-foot (64 m) Escort Response Vehicle (ERV). Tanker in Valdez is no longer skinned. Congress enacted a law requiring all tanker ships to be in place by 2015.
Economic and personal impact
In 1991, after the collapse of the local marine population (especially clams, herring and seals) Chugach Alaska Corporation, Alaska Native Corporation, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. It has since recovered.
According to several studies funded by the state of Alaska, the spill has short-term and long-term economic effects. These include the loss of recreational sports, fisheries, reduced tourism, and what economists consider to be the "value of existence", which is the value to the pristine public of Prince William.
The economy of Cordova, Alaska is affected after the spillover of salmon and herring fish in the area. Chenega village turns into emergency base and media outlet. The local villagers had to overcome three times their population from 80 to 250. When asked how they felt about the situation, a village council noted that they were too shocked and busy becoming depressed; others stress the cost of leaving human children unattended while their parents are working to clean up. Many Native Americans fear that too much time is spent on fishing and not enough on land that supports subsidence hunting.
In 2010, a CNN report alleged that many of the oil spill cleaning workers involved in Exxon Valdez's response later became sick. Anchorage's lawyer, Dennis Mestas, found that this was true of 6,722 of the 11,000 file workers he could examine. Access to records is controlled by Exxon. Exxon responded in a statement to CNN:
After 20 years, there is no evidence to suggest that cleaning workers or citizens affected by the Valdez spill have adverse health effects as a result of spills or clearance.
Reaction
In 1992, Exxon released a video titled Alaska Scientist and Spill , to be distributed to schools. Dr. Michael Fry called it "corporate propaganda".
In December 1994, Unabomber murdered the Burson-Marsteller executive Thomas Mosser, accusing him of "helping Exxon clean up its public image after the Exxon Valdez incident." Public relations companies claim not to be contracted during the actual crisis.
In popular culture
A few weeks after the spill, Saturday Night Live presented a sketchy show featuring Kevin Nealon, Phil Hartman, and Victoria Jackson as a cleaning worker struggling to rub animal and stone oils on the beach at Prince William Sound.
In the 1995 movie Waterworld , Exxon Valdez was the winner of the movie criminals, "The Deacon," the leader of a gang of scorpions. On the ship are portraits of their patron saint, Joseph Hazelwood.
In the second Forrest Gump novel, Gump and Co. by Winston Groom, Gump directed Exxon Valdez and accidentally hit him.
See also
- List of oil spills
- Deepwater Horizon oil spill
- Ixtoc I oil spill
- Dead Ahead: The Exxon Valdez Disaster, HBO Film 1992
References
Further reading
- Lee, Douglas B. (August 1989). "Tragedy in Alaska Waters". National Geographic . Vol.Ã, 176 no.Ã, 2. pp.Ã, 260-263. ISSNÃ, 0027-9358. OCLCÃ, 643483454.
External links
- NTSB safety recommendations to address crew management deficiencies at Exxon and in industry
- Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Retention Board
- ExxonMobil updates and news about Valdez
- Images of the Exxon Valdez oil spill from the Office of Response and Recovery of the National Ocean Service
- Evaluation of Damage and Recovery at the National Marine Fisheries Service
- Oil Spill Profile: Exxon Valdez at the United States Environmental Protection Agency
- US National Response Team
- Exxon Valdez oil spill in Encyclopedia of Earth
- The story behind the oil spill verdict - originally published in San Diego Union-Tribune
- Alaska Region Response Team Report on Exxon Valdez disaster
- BP Played a Major Role in Banned Detention in 1989 Exxon Valdez Disaster - video report by Democracy Now!
- The short film Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Assessment (April 24, 1990) is available for free download on the Internet Archive
- Short film Exxon Valdez: One Year Later (March 22, 1990) available for free download on the Internet Archive
- Photographs related to the oil spill from the Alaska Resource Library and Information Service (ARLIS)
- "25 Years After Exxon Valdez , BP Becomes the Hidden Culprit" at Truthdig (March 23, 2014)
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments