An analysis of the exxon valdez oil spill in prince william sound alaska

Graphics are not included. Tankers carrying North Slope crude oil had safely transited Prince William Sound more than 8, times in the 12 years since oil began flowing through the trans-Alaska pipeline, with no major disasters and few serious incidents.

An analysis of the exxon valdez oil spill in prince william sound alaska

Clean-up and environmental impact[ edit ] Workers using high-pressure, hot-water washing to clean an oiled shoreline Chemical dispersant, a surfactant and solvent mixture, was applied to the slick by a private company on March 24 with a helicopter. But the helicopter missed the target area.

Oil Spill Facts - Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council

Scientific data on its toxicity were either thin or incomplete. In addition, public acceptance of a new, widespread chemical treatment was lacking.

Landowners, fishing groups, and conservation organizations questioned the use of chemicals on hundreds of miles of shoreline when other alternatives may have been available.

Clean-up efforts after the Exxon Valdez oil spill 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.

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. Both the long-term and short-term effects of the oil spill have been studied.

The researchers found that at only a few parts per billion, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons caused a long-term increase in mortality rates. They reported that "species as diverse as sea otters, harlequin ducks and killer whales suffered large, long-term losses and that oiled mussel beds and other tidal shoreline habitats will take an estimated 30 years to recover.

Exxon Mobil denied any concerns over any remaining oil, stating that they anticipated a remaining fraction that they assert will not cause any long-term ecological impacts, according to the conclusions of the studies they had done: Scientists who have monitored the spill area for the last 25 years report that concern remains for one of two pods of local orca whales, with fears that one pod may eventually die out.

An analysis of the exxon valdez oil spill in prince william sound alaska

Some of the oil does not appear to have biodegraded at all. A USGS scientist who analyses the remaining oil along the coastline states that it remains among rocks and between tide marks. Left out, the surface crusts over but the inside still has the consistency of mayonnaise — or mousse.

The major part of the money would be spent to finish cleaning up oiled beaches and attempting to restore the crippled herring population. Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the trial judge, Russel Holland, to reduce the punitive damages. Exxon appealed again and the case returned to Holland to be reconsidered in light of a recent Supreme Court ruling in a similar case.

The court of appeals cited recent Supreme Court rulings relative to limits on punitive damages. Exxon then appealed to the Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case. Exxon's actions were deemed "worse than negligent but less than malicious.

Leahy has decried the ruling as "another in a line of cases where this Supreme Court has misconstrued congressional intent to benefit large corporations. 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.

Other plaintiffs have objected to this secret arrangement, [46] 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.

The state disputed the claim, stating that there was a long-standing agreement to allow the use of dispersants to clean up spills, thus Exxon did not require permission to use them, and that in fact Exxon had not had enough dispersant on hand to effectively handle a spill of the size created by the Valdez.

The company claimed that the Coast Guard was "wholly or partially responsible" for the spill, because they had granted mariners' licenses to the crew of the Valdez, and because they had given the Valdez permission to leave regular shipping lanes to avoid ice.

They also reiterated the claim that the Coast Guard had delayed cleanup by refusing to give permission to immediately use chemical dispersants on the spill. Collaborating with InnoCentive they found a partial solution for the flow of oil. Exxon claimed OPA was effectively a bill of attaindera regulation that was unfairly directed at Exxon alone.

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. Repairs began on July The vessel was then owned by a Hong Kong company, who operated it under the name Oriental Nicety.

In Augustit was beached at Alang, India and dismantled. Alaska regulations[ edit ] 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.

Tankers at Valdez are no longer single-hulled. Congress enacted legislation requiring all tankers to be double-hulled as of It has since recovered. These included the loss of recreational sportsfisheries, reduced tourism, and an estimate of what economists call " existence value ", which is the value to the public of a pristine Prince William Sound.

Exxon Valdez oil spill - Wikipedia

The local villagers had to cope with a tripling of their population from 80 to When asked how they felt about the situation, a village councillor noted that they were too shocked and busy to be depressed; others emphasized the human costs of leaving children unattended while their parents worked to clean up.

Ina CNN report alleged that many oil spill cleanup workers involved in the Exxon Valdez response had subsequently become sick. Anchorage lawyer Dennis Mestas found that this was true of 6, of 11, worker files he was able to inspect. Access to the records was controlled by Exxon.

Exxon responded in a statement to CNN:Details about the Accident. SPILL: The wreck of the Exxon Valdez Final Report, Alaska Oil Spill Commission Published February by the State of Alaska The following is a .

Information on ecosystem restoration, research, and monitoring following the March Exxon Valdez Oil Spill in Prince William Sound, Alaska. A recently published scientific study says the Exxon-Valdez oil spill in Prince William Sound is less to blame for salmon and herring declines than previously thought, but critics say it’s.

The supertanker Exxon Valdez ran aground on 24 March , spilling 41 × 10 6 L of oil into Prince William Sound, Alaska. To examine effects of this oil spill on the marine bird community, we analyzed data from 11 survey cruises between June and August The Exxon Valdez is an American oil tanker that went aground on a reef in Prince William Sound, Alaska, on the night of March 24, The nine hundred and eighty seven-foot tanker ran aground on a reef and started to leak oil.

The leakage continued for two days, totaling eleven million ga. Page, Boehm, NeffShoreline Type and Subsurface Oil Persistence in the Exxon Valdez spill zone of Prince William Sound, Alaska, Paper Presented at 31st AMOP Technical Seminar on Environmental Contamination and Response, June 3, –June 5.

Exxon Valdez Oil Spill