The Oil Still Polluting Alaska, 20 Years After Exxon Valdez (VIDEO)
The Exxon Valdez tanker ran aground in the Prince William Sound on March 24th, 1989. Over the next three days, three-thousand miles of Alaska's coastline were coated with somewhere between 11 and 38 million gallons of crude oil. To give you a point of reference: had the spill occurred off the east coast of the 'Lower 48,' oil would have destroyed coastline from New York Harbor to Cape Canaveral.
All the communities along the coast--which depend on the Sound's fish populations for food, jobs, tourism, and work--were devastated. One such community was Cordova, Alaska where a good friend of mine, Dr. Riki Ott, was working as a commercial "fisherma'am" at the time of the spill. Riki, also a Marine Biologist, has spent the last 20 years of her life fighting for justice from Exxon, working to restore affected communities, and teaching about the dangers of oil and corporate power.
One of the videos she carries with her as she travels the country shows the lasting effects of the Exxon Valdez that still pollute Alaska's beaches today—nearly 20 years after the spill. Riki explained it to me like this, "We take students down to the beach, dig a hole somewhere, and pour water in." This is what that experiment looks like.
Riki's latest venture, as she explains in her book Not One Drop: Betrayal and Courage in the Wake of the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill, and as you've seen covered here on Huffington, is the 28th Amendment to the Constitution: The Separation of Corporation and State. Exxon would not have been able to evade justice for this devastation had it not had the same protections under the law as individual citizens.
For updates on the 28th Amendment movement, join the Facebook group.
To watch Riki explain her path to Marine Biology and activism, check out this interview.
J.S. McDougall is the head blogger at Chelsea Green -- a news site and book publisher covering the politics and practice of sustainability.
Follow J.S. McDougall on Twitter: www.twitter.com/chelseagreen
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
As a farming kid, I used to load my truck with manure. My job was to deliver it safely. I was responsible if that didn't happen.
the Supreme Court let Exxon off the hook in Baker v. Exxon by basically giving them a pass on corporate responsibility . Exxon owned this supreme court , as they legislated from the bench ,in determining the ratio to which punitive damages should be applied by coming up with new standards just for this case. If a drunk cab driver (hazelwood) comes to you party and pukes all over your rug , isn't the cab company(Exxon) responsible for cleaning it up and repairing any damage. As well as giving the people at the party a free dinner voucher for ruining the evening.
The vacated the 2.5 billion, which was reduced from the original 5 billion. The Supreme Court sent the case back to the lower court with an instruction that punitive damages should not exceed actual damages.
I believe actual damages were originally assessed to be 300 million. The lower court assessed a punitive damage award of 500 million, which may be 300 million plus interest. I don't know about that for sure.
ExxonMobil cannot pay the 500 million until the people who are to get it all agree on how it's to be divided up. Once they agree, it will be paid immediately.
Once paid, ExxonMobil will have paid out 3 billion dollars.
In the context of the Valdez, In your example the Supreme Court says the cab company has to pay actual damages, and that the punitive damages should not exceed the actual damages .
Actually, the damage matrix was agreed upon years ago. One processing plant, Seahawk Seafoods, tried to challenge the matrix a few weeks back. Their request was thrown out.
While its little consolation to those affected by the Valdez disaster, the event did have a major impact on the oil transportation sector. There are more extensive regulations in place both with tanker design and operation, as well as to address human factors that can increase the likelihood of major spills.
Also, I don't think Exxon got off on this with no cost to themselves. They spent a substantial amount of money on spill restoration, the subsequent investigation, and on taking steps to help restore their reputation. They've been paying their way through litigation since the incident, which I cannot imagine has been good for their bottom line.
While it is important to be concerned about the way the legal proceedings have and will go with this case, it is equally important to recognize that Exxon has a responsibility to its shareholders (which include many of the mutual funds, 401ks, etc. held by folks on this board) to try to limit its liabilties through due process of law. Exxon acting out this responsibility does not mean that they are heartless and corrupt.
Reasonable.
Transporting crude oil is fraught with risks. Things are better now, but a spill just as bad could happen at any time.
The HP was full of complaints about gasoline prices last summer. Americans burn/use more than 20 billion barrels of crude oil a year. We are voracious. Take a gander at any freeway in any large city in the United States. To keep up with our demand oil companies are shaking the bushes all over the world to find anything quantity that can be profitably extracted. We are the ones who are inspiring that frantic activity, not them.
Exxon "spent a substantial amount of money on restoration"? Have you lost your pea-pickin mind? What they spent was less than half of the amount they spent advertizing and putting out fluffy press releases. They STILL have paid no monies to recompence the people most affected by this disaster, and are still holding up on making this area what it was in the beginning, pristine.
Now is the time to enact REAL environmental regulation, just that if you broke it, you (the stockholders, officers and employees) you fix it. No matter what the cost, no matter if it takes the entire personal assets of those involved, and their earnings are garnished for life. No other regulation is necessary. If you cause an oil spill, you clean it up until the environment is back to what it was before the spill.
Exxon created this mess, and has posted the highest profit for anyone last quarter, perhaps they should quit litigating and settle some of the claims for loss of income, livlyhood and the horrible loss of one of the most beautiful places on earth!
To date they have spent 2.5 billion - almost all of that between the spill and 1992 when the state of Alaska and the United States Coast Guard declared the cleanup finished.
In 1989 their annual profit was 5 billion, so I suspect 2.5 billion was substantially more than their advertising budget.
Last summer they settled for 500 million more. They can't pay that until the other sides stops arguing among themselves and decides who gets what.
It don't hurt the moose , I betcha!
Who demands gasoline? Think just maybe that person deserves a bit of blame.
Use of the product does not excuse Exxon. They fought the case for 18+ years. They should have accepted responsibility. By the way, their big claim was that they shouldn't have to pay damages because they did such a good job cleaning up the mess. Well, that video suggests otherwise.
They claimed they should not have to pay punitive damages.
There is a difference between actual damages and punitive damages. They paid the actual damage assessment immediately. They fought the punitive damages.
If you were assessed punitive damages that you did not believe were allowed by law, would you pay it or fight it? Try to be honest.
And those who demand gasoline do share in he blame for what that does to the environment. We are all just as culpable as ExxonMobil.
Corporate person-hood will be the death of this nation and the world. Thanks, Justice Roberts. You made a fine ruling this year in not forcing Exxon to pay a miniscule amount of the damage it caused. Twenty years later and the beautiful Alaska coastline still looks like an oil mine. Conservatives will not be happy until this planet is a flaming, rotting, putrid mess. Shame on you, for your callous disregard for the planet that sustains us all.
Do you use gasoline?
Using a resource doesn't make you culpable for the illegal and immoral acts of an irresponsible exploiter of that resource. If you own a fuel efficient car, walk or bicycle when you can, use public transportation, insulate your home, and make other wise energy decisions, you have every right to criticize Exxon for its ubiquitous efforts to take as much from the Earth as they can.
Do you love the Earth and your fellow man? Prove it.
Exxon spent 20 frickin' years fighting in the courts to reduce the muti-billion dollar verdict awarded to the people of Valdez, Alaska. This Summer the Supreme Court reduced the fine to 500 million.
Last year, Exxon paid it's departing CEO 400 million dollars without blinking an eye!
Each Supreme Court Justice who voted against Valdez and for Exxon, was appointed by a Republican president.
Each Justice who voted against Exxon and for Valdez, was appointed by a Democratic president.
Quess who the good people of Alaska voted for in this presidential election?
Hard to feel sorry for them.
Exxon named one of their oil tankers after Ms. Rice.
Yes, there is a tanker out there sailing the seas named the Condoleeza.
Ain't life grand?
Ya gotta love those Republicans, they've got more nerve than a bad tooth.
That was Chevron . . . She sat on the board of Chevron for most of the 90's and resigned after being appointed NSA by Bush. The tanker has since been renamed Altair Voyager.
So let me get this straight. The reason not to drill is because we had a spill back in 1989? That was 20 years ago. That is like not having nuclear because Chernobyl melted down.
Well I hope no one ever drove a Ford because of the Pinto explosions. I hope no one ever uses a computer because of the worms inherent in Windows/Vista.
Get over yourselves a little.
Please explain this. Let's say that in 20 years the US is OFF OIL completely. That is 20 million barrels back in the supply per day. Let's also say that consumption continues at normal pace. How long will it take China, India, and every other country to pick up those 20 million barrels? The answer -- not long at all...maybe 5-7 years at most.
So now we have oil all over the place. The US gets no benefit from the vast reserves we have. The world is polluting at a much greater level because of lacked regulations. Oil is now the cheaper commodity because all of these other countries don't have the money to convert to wind or solar or whatever. So come 2029 -- the US is ultra clean -- yet the world is much worse off.
Keeping the US on the oil supply is massively important because the world needs US technology to make OIL BETTER and more efficient. Without the largest economy making strides in oil research (cause we won't, we won't need to) -- oil won't evolve.
instagladiators comment applies:
"You are wandering off topic with your comments. Exxon has shirked its responsibilities to the community (and nation) by not adequately cleaning up THEIR mess. They are simply treating this as an act of nature and leaving it for someone else to worry about, or nature to heal herself. Hello?"
So it's part of the cost of an oil based economy. It cannot be that the oil companies get away with something like this and thus hide the real cost.
Yes, we had the spill back20 years. You can very well see how well that's been taken care of.
But good that the departing Exxon CEO got this 400 million $ package. Such a poor boy.
And how are we supposed to get oil from ANWR to the lower 48?
How about a pipeline --
At some point it would be loaded on a tanker.
Oil comes from the North Slope down the Trans-Alaskan Pipeline to Valdez, Alaska. It's then tankered, mostly to the US West Coast.
Damn.
When has any oil corporation ever paid to cleanup their mistakes. They prefer to write environmental, tax and business law favorable to them and to let the taxpayers "clean up" their messes.
It's not drilling that creates the worst pollution problems. It's transportation and sabotage. Leaks from shipwrecks and pipeline breaks & leaks are the biggest problems. Deliberate destruction, like in the Gulf War and the sabotage of the Iraqui wells, tanks, and pipelines are a rising problem.
Weaning us off the oil teat will help tremendously, but it's still always going to be a problem.
Furthermore, an enormous percentage of all oil goes into the plastics industry, and plastic is now totally indespensible to our current civilization. It's going to be harder to find substitutes for what's needed there than for energy. Recycling is helping a huge amount, but discarded plastics are becoming as big a pollution problem as oil spills, especially in the oceans.
You are wandering off topic with your comments. Exxon has shirked its responsibilities to the community (and nation) by not adequately cleaning up THEIR mess. They are simply treating this as an act of nature and leaving it for someone else to worry about, or nature to heal herself. Hello?
This topic has wandered all over the place already. Mind your own business.
And their mantra is drill baby drill
I know--stupid.
Spill Baby Spill is more like it.
There is another solution to problems like this that gets no attention.
When I heard the Valdez reports, I wrote a letter to Exxon and enclosed my cut up Exxon credit card. I said that I would never buy another gallon of Exxon gas. It didn't matter a hoot because I was one of a few hundred who took that step. Exxon grew to become the largest and most profitable company in history, and it has millions to spend to defend itself against Valdez claims.
BUT WHAT IF tens or hundreds of thousands of Americans said NO, you lost my business forever. I will buy gas from the 20-30 companies who haven't polluted the environment. Exxon would not be what it is today and every other oil company would have established environmental policies that would protect them from the same fate.
When it comes to business, we have all the power. Let's use it.
I'd be interested to see the list of the 20-30 non-polluters.
LOL
To this day I won't go into an Exxon station. I just wonder if it has be rebranded or merged with another company.
I wish people were more hardy to these problems, but most just want to get home and plop down in front of their tv.
They sold off their gasoline stations, a couple months ago I think?
It's Exxon-Mobil now.
The Supreme Court just ruled the punitive damages awarded at the Exxon Valdez trial were excessive and it nullified them (or remanded the case -- I can't remember). SO -- there's justice for you...
By the way, Exxon has had WORLD RECORD PROFITS FOR THE PAST 6 QUARTERS earning HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN PROFITS, yet they are sinister enough to refuse paying Alaskans what they deserve, AND they still have no completed cleanup.
I am glad to see these comments. It has been 19 1/2 years since I pulled into an Exxon station. I have been tempted by convenience over the years but my husband is the enforcer. Seeing other folks with this strength of purpose gives me the resolve to stay tough for another 20 years!
The oil companies make very little of their money through their marketing brands. For instance, an Exxon refinery in New Jersey sells gasoline to a distributor which may sell gasoline to BP gas stations, or shell gas stations, or mom and pop gas stations etc.
While it may feel good not to look at Exxon when you're standing at the pump, you're not really having any impact on their bottom line, just the gas station owner who has signed on with the brand.
It probably doesn't matter much, the little guy gas station owners are the ones who suffer while Exxon sells its product on the open market.
To add insult to injury, the law firm that has continually strung along Exxon's paying the damages to the state of Alaska and has had those fine reduced to a pittance of their original value, less than a third, since this catastrophe, hired the captain of the Valdez to work in their offices.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
