Exxon Valdez Oil Spill - Coursework Example

Running head: EXXON VALDEZ OIL SPILL Exxon Valdez Oil Spill (school) Exxon Valdez oil spill Introduction The Exxon Valdez oil spill isone of the most destructive and damaging oil spills in our history. Its impact is actually still being felt to the current day because of its significant environmental repercussions. Its effect on Alaskan waters and affected coastlines is such that the original ecological balance and quality of these areas can never be restored. This oil spill dispersed about eleven million gallons of oil into Alaskan waters and the oil damaged coastlines, livelihoods, and the ecological balance of the region. This paper shall discuss the details leading up to and following the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Specific details on cleanup and ecological damages shall also be discussed. Body Context of the spill The oil tanker Exxon Valdez left the Trans Alaskan port on the 23rd of March 1989 at past 9 in the evening with its path set to traverse Valdez Narrows. Joe Hazelwood was the captain of this oil tanker and that night, he retired to his quarters and asked William Murphy to steer the ship through the Valdez Narrows (Lindemann, et.al., 2007). After some control difficulties, the oil tanker ran aground on the Bligh Reef three hours after its departure from the port. A review by the National Transportation Safety Board revealed five causes for the incident. These causes were: the third mate’s failure to control the vessel coupled with the master’s failure to establish navigation watch; the shipping company’s failure to secure a well-rested crew to man the tanker; the US Coast Guard’s failure to provide a traffic system for the tanker; and the ship’s lack of adequate pilot and escort services (Wheelright, 1994). These factors taken together led to the oil spill. The Exxon Valdez tanker was carrying about 53 million gallons of oil at the time of the spill and eleven million gallons were spilled into Alaskan waters during the oil spill (Lindemann, et.al., 2007). Further investigation also revealed that the captain of the vessel was drunk during that night and his judgment on the running of the vessel was severely compromised; moreover, he failed to assign positions to the appropriate individuals that night of the spill. This led to one of the largest oil spills in history and a response to the oil spill which was very much overcome with uncertainty and incompetence. The result of the spill led to about four years of cleanup which was later called off. The costs of the cleanup amounted to about 2.1 million dollars (Lindemann, et.al., 2007). But since the cleanups were called off, many beaches and coastlines were never really cleaned. To this day, tar balls and oil are washed up on these coastlines and these are unlikely to ever sustain any life form. Aftermath of the spill Different methods were applied by workers to clean up the coastline. Firstly, high pressure hoses were utilized to blast oil away from the coast and later to be caught by booms and then removed from the water (Lindemann, et.al., 2007). Secondly, hot water treatments of the land were also utilized. However, this was discontinued when small organisms were seen being overheated and cooked by the hot water treatments. Cold water was then applied with the same procedure (Lindemann, et.al., 2007). Thirdly, backhoes were also used to upturn the soil in order to reach the oil which seeped into the sand. When the grounds were cleaned, they were treated with fertilizer in an effort to facilitate the microscopic cleansing of the land (Lindemann, et.al., 2007). This procedure however proved successful only in areas which were not heavily covered with oil. Fourth, chemical agents were also applied in order to clean the waters and the land. Moreover, a new means of improving the natural breakdown of the oil in the environment was also used. This process involved the utilization of microorganisms which could degrade or ‘eat’ the oil (Lloyd and Hartig, 2007). These microorganisms broke down the oil into its most basic byproducts which were not anymore harmful to living organisms. They acted to remove carbon out of the molecules which made up the oil, thereby causing the chains to gradually break down and fall apart. Lastly, bioremediation was also used to clean up the oil spill. Bioremediation includes the introduction of microorganisms into the environment in order to facilitate the natural process of eliminating harmful chemicals (Lloyd and Hartig, 2007). Before this oil spill, this method was not utilized in cleaning up oil spills and at that time, it was difficult to assess the success of the process. This method proved to be advantageous because of the length of coastlines which had to be cleaned, the limitations in terms of time and money, and because of the impossibility of reaching all beaches affected (Lindemann, et.al., 2007). The EPA shelled out close to five million dollars for this process and the Exxon also committed significant funds to support the program (Burger, 1997). This process was able to achieve much success, but was still inadequate to restore environmental balance in the area. The oil spill was so extensive that the clean up process was very much a serious undertaking. It also affected areas which were close to inaccessible. Many parts of the waters affected were not actually accessible to helicopters and boats (Lindemann, et.al., 2007). This made the cleanup process difficult and prolonged. The US Coast Guard was primarily in charge of the cleanup process and the initial action this agency took was on closing the port to traffic. The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation agency was immediately contacted for an immediate assessment of the damage (United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2006). The National Response Team followed with an evaluation of the course of action needed to manage the oil spill. As the cleanup operations were started, specialists from the Hubbs Marine Institute in San Diego, California also setup a facility in order to clean the oil from the otters and animals caught in the spill. Some animals were able to recover immediately, but many died and were suffocated by the oil (US EPA, 2006). Various methods for the cleaning were carried out, including burning and the use of mechanical and chemical dispersants. As was mentioned earlier, bioremediation processes were also applied. Skimmers were also sent out. These skimmers functioned to draw out oil, are clogged up, and then taken out of the waters (Burger, 1997). These skimmers were however easily damaged because of over clogging. Chemical dispersants were also used however these were inadequate because the company only had less than four thousand gallons available. Moreover, there was no application equipment available and there were no aircrafts available to retrieve the dispersants from the water (Burger, 1997). There was also an insufficient amount of wave action to mix the dispersants once they were in the water. Due to these problems, the Coast Guard stopped using these dispersants. All in all, there were various problems in the cleanup process, and delays in the process caused the dispersal of more oil into the coastlines, the destruction of more beaches, and the deaths of thousands of animals and plants in the areas affected. Laws passed since the oil spill Since the oil spill, investigations were carried out in order to establish the cause of the spill. The investigations revealed that the situation was not adequately handled. The government also accepted the fact that they were not sufficiently armed with the tools to handle the incident (Lindemann, et.al., 2007). In 1990, the government passed the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 and this act specified the penalties for oil companies for their oil spills. The Oil Spill Liability Trust fund was also set up in the event that a responsible party cannot be found or is not able to pay for the damages (US EPA, 1990). Controversies following the spill After the spill, a general outcry against the oil companies was heard. Many coastal residents and environmentalists point out that the company did not adequately clean up the oil spill and much effort was just directed towards litigation procedures which eventually cost the government close to 630 million dollars (Lindemann, et.al., 2007). Many Alaskans are demanding that the costs being allocated by the government for the settlement of the oil spill be spent instead for wildlife protections reserves in order to provide a safe and protected haven for animals. Environmental advocates believe that there is nothing more which can be done about the spill and protecting the area from another spill is the next best thing for them to do (Lemonick, 1992). The courts still argue on the liability of Exxon and in 1994, the corporation was ruled to be responsible for about 5 billion dollars damage to Alaskan commercial fishermen and property holders (Nieves, 2001). Eighteen years after the oil spill, the appeals court reduced the damages to $2.5 billion. Exxon Valdez has further appealed this ruling arguing that it should not be held liable anymore for the spill because it paid for the cleanup. To this day, this case has not been completely settled. Immediate impact of the spill Birds, mammals, fishes, vegetation, and other marine organisms suffered significantly from the spill (Nieves, 2001). After the spill, ornithologists gathered to survey the area. They found dead oiled birds adrift and recorded the birds which were beached on the shores. An estimate of 37,000 birds was recovered after the spill and ten times this number died (Kausmauki, 1999). About 5000 otters, 300 harbor seals, and 22 killer whales died after the spill; more than 150 bald eagles, 250,000 waterfowl and other birds like murres, cormorants, guillemots, oystercatchers, loons, and ducks would soon follow. The plight of sea otters was particularly grim because they were the animals who spent the most time on the surface of the water and were unable to escape the oil spill (Lindemann, et.al., 2007). Beyond the animals which died during this spill, the loss of human livelihood also registered significant effects. Farmers who were very much dependent on the sustainability of the ocean soon found themselves out of work and out of visible means of support. The Alaskans suffered from their reduced harvest of fish, marine animals, and shellfish (Lindemann, et.al., 2007). Shellfishes were not spared the impact of the oil spill, and mussels were severely affected by the spill. They were heavily oiled after the spill and were severely depleted soon after. Long-term effects The damage of the oil spill has not been fully assessed in more than 20 years following the incident. In 2004, the National Geographic revisited the area and found that 15 years after the spill, there is reduced surface evidence of the oil which once spilled into the area. However, underneath the sand and the soil, swaths of oil are still buried inches below the surface and run the length of the coastlines (Lovgren, 2004). Many animal species have not recovered from the spill. These animals include the common loons, harbor seals, harlequin ducks, and the Pacific herring (Lindemann, et.al., 2007). Sea otters are still very much affected by the spill because they often have to dig and eat clams underground, and this is where most of the oil has settled. Even if the clams are clean, the oil can still get into the otter’s fur and this severely threatens their health, their insulation, and their survival. The impact of the oil spill are still felt and even as the fishing industry has recovered, oil is still in Prince William Sound and different animal and marine species are still suffering from the impact of the oil spilled. Although the initial cleanup efforts were deemed noble, even if they were inadequate, future cleanup efforts were not secured and are actually have now been forgotten (Lindemann, et.al., 2007). During the spill, the companies and the cleanup companies had no skimmer vessels and booms for a large ship. In effect, the impact of the oil was admittedly exacerbated due to these deficiencies. Long term efforts for rehabilitation have also been hindered by the expense and the environmental impact of such cleanups (Lindemann, et.al., 2007). In the years following the spill there have been many other oil spills by Exxon Valdez and by other oil companies and still the same effects were also seen with little improvements made on the management of these disasters. Conclusion The discussion above illustrates the events surrounding the Exxon Valdez oil spill. This discussion illustrates how the Exxon Valdez oil tanker was run aground on March 24, 1989 and how it spilled about 11 million gallons of oil into the Prince William Sound area. The immediate cleanup which followed included mechanical as well as chemical cleanups, and the use of bioremediation. The efforts of the government and the company to clean up the spill were however relatively inadequate as oil damaged the coastlines, seeped into the ground, killed off animals, and lost the residents their source of income. To this date, the impact of the oil spill is still being felt and the oil company has not fully paid for the damage it has caused. Moreover, even as the surface of the waters seems to show no sign of oil, the damage is still being felt among the animals and people who call this area home. Works Cited Burger, J. (1997). Oil Spills. Rutgers University Press: New Brunswick, NJ. Kausmauki, K. (1999). In the Wake of the Spill: Ten Years after Exxon Valdez. National Geographic. Retrieved 28 October 2011 from http://kasmauski.wordpress.com/2010/05/18/in-the-wake-of-the-spills/ Lemonick, M. (1992). Alaska’s Billion Dollar Quandary. Time Magazine. Retrieved 28 October 2011 from http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/.html Lindemann, E., Naude, N., Romero, P., & Tengwall, K. (2007). The Exxon Valdez Oil Spill. Gordon University. Retrieved 28 October 2011 from http://faculty.gordon.edu/ns/ch/dwight_tshudy/documents/CH111WritingProjectFall2007.pdf#page=91 Lloyd, D. & Hartig, L. (2007). Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council. Anchorage Alaska. Retrieved 28 October 2011 from http://www.evostc.state.ak.us Lovgren, S. (2004). Exxon Valdez Spill, 15 Years Later: Damage Lingers. National Geographic. Retrieved 28 October 2011 from http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/03/0318_040318_exxonvaldez.html Nieves, E. (2001). Court Overturns Jury Award in Valdez Spill. The New York Times. Retrieved 28 October 2011 from http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html United States Environmental Protection Agency (1990). Oil Pollution Act Overview. US EPA. Retrieved 28 October 2011 from http://www.epa.gov/oilspill/opaover.htm United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2006). Exxon Valdez. US EPA. Retrieved 28 October 2011 from http://www.epa.gov/oilspill/exxon.htm Wheelright, J. (1994). Degrees of Disaster: Prince William Sound: How Nature Reels and Rebounds. Simon and Schuster: New York. Read More