Talk:Exxon Valdez oil spill/Archive 1

Archive 1

section break

Mohaha PWN

---

The Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council is not run by the State of Alaska. It is a multi-agency Trustee Council with representatives from the Alaska Dept of Law, Alaska Dept of Fish and Game, the Alaska Dept of Environmental Conservation, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admin, the US Dept of Agriculture, and, the US Dept of the Interior. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobcat918 (talk • contribs) 23:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Exxon Valdez was the name of a ship. Susan Mason

What does "maintaint the ship's Raycas radar off" mean? --the Epopt 22:51 Mar 26, 2003 (UTC)

"Journalist Greg Palast has argued that the accident was due to a corporate decision not to maintain the ship's Raycas radar in order to save money. Palast contends that the ship had been running without radar for at least a year."

Nobody has bothered to rebut this. It is not very credible, no other investigation showed this. KAM 13:37, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Could use another section?

Something about socioeconomic impact. Material include the effects on the lives of the people involved. The mayor of Cordova, a fishing town, for example, committed suicide after his town failed to revitalize after years of waiting for settlement of punitive damaged from Exxon. In his note, he requested that his ashes be scattered on Bligh Reef, where the oil tanker wrecked. Also, the Markets for Alaskan seafood product shifted in 1989 when product became unavailable. Many never shifted back, resulting in many bankruptsies among fishermen. Mention of this might be good. Some think that Exxon will pay their punitive damages fine in 2006, so it would be nice to get this article in good shape soon, I think. Wadsworth 15:13, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup

The section "The Great Oil Spill" simply repeats information, and the section "Long-Term Monitoring" provides no information, simply asking questions. This article needs to be cleaned up more than the Alaska shoreline it describes! :) appzter 06:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I did a little bit of cleanup, and added another section. Updated some dates, too. I could use some source citations, I'll work on those today, if I have time.Wadsworth 22:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup Measures

THIS IS THE MOST WASTE OF TIME THAT I HAVE EVER HEARD the Exxon Valdez. The only differences are that this article drops some sentences.

---

i dont know why someone, instead of editing the error, wrote "this is all lies, lol --at the top it says this happened on march 24." because it said in the "cleanup measures" section that it happened on the 28th.(CrustacheAdan 05:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC))

Barrels

Shouldn't barrels be used, rather than gallons? Oil is typically measured by the barrel(At least in the US). 204.9.144.52 14:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Good point. I did a search on oil spills on google, and everyone measures them in gallons. Maybe barrels is the unit used for producing, buying, and selling oil, but gallons is used for measuring spills. Kind of like the americanism of the media mesuring things in the length unit of "football fields" (which I think is silly).Wadsworth 15:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

F.Y.I. - The amount of oil in barrels was 240,001. [taken from http://www.marinergroup.com/oil-spill-history.htm] - Wes

referring to it in gallons gives a bigger number, making it look worse —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.131.186.161 (talk) 01:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

That was a wonderful article! I would love to know all about it!!

Amount spilled

However, later measurements of the amount of seawater in the fluid pumped from the tanks indicate that this figure is certainly too small. A conservative estimate is that 30 million gallons (110,000 m³) of oil spilled. As with the article at Exxon Valdez this information is not verifiable and web page cited is ad for a book. KAM 23:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The web site cited is a page by Riki Ott, about her book on the oil spill. What makes you think that this link is an advertisement for her book? It's a source of research, as is appropriate for Wikipedia. Why do you think that the figure 10.8 million is more verifiable than the figure 30 million? Oh, of course, the press grabbed the first estimate available (and they are ALWAYS accurate, right?), and they got it FROM EXXON ITSELF, who has a desperate motive to minimize the impact of their disaster. An estimate from that source seems far more suspect than a more informed estimate, based on more data, that was made later on, and from a more reliable source (Riki Ott, Ph.D), that has no financial incentive to fudge the numbers. Am I wrong? Wadsworth 14:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

"Exxon reported 10.8 million gallons (40,900 m³), but all other estimates are much higher, generally around 30 million gallons" Do you have any citations to support this? Here are some reports citing 10.8 million gals.

• Alaska Oil Spill Commission. 1990. Spill: The Wreck of the Exxon Valdez. Final Report. Juneau: State of Alaska. 1990.
• National Transportation Safety Board. 1990.Marine Accident Report: Grounding of the U.S. Tankship Exxon Valdez: on Bligh Reef, Prince William Sound, near Valdez, Alaska, March 24, 1989. Washington, D.C.: NTSB. NTSB/MAR-90/04.
• Piper, E. 1993. The Exxon Valdez Oil Spill: Final Report, State of Alaska Response. Anchorage: Alaska Dept. of Environmental Conservation.
• U.S. Coast Guard. 1993. T/V Exxon Valdez oil spill: Federal On Scene Coordinator's report. Vol. 1. Washington, D.C.: Dept. of Transportation. KAM 23:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

To cite your own source: "But when the state was making its case against Exxon in the early '90s, it was trying to determine the size of the spill on its own by figuring out how much oil the lightering vessels carried away. The state stopped working on theproject after reaching a settlement with Exxon in 1991. Except as a benchmark against other spills, the number didn't matter any more." How much is Exxon paying you to run this mis-information campaign? Wadsworth 04:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The gist of this article is that anecdotal evidence has never been verified. http://www.anchoragepress.com/archives-2004/newsvol13ed11.shtml KAM 11:33, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, and I tend to believe the article. So we should not accept without question the figure that 1) is by far the lowest estimate, 2) was provided by the organization that has motivation to have small figure accepted as fact, even though the Media uses that figure. I think we must include Exxon's figure, as well as mention that this estimate is suspect, that other estimates are far greater. Wadsworth 13:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Here are some links to envionmental organizations with no motivation to use a low number. All use 11 mg

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/exxon-valdez-disaster-15-year

http://www.sierraclub.org/pressroom/releases/pr2005-03-23a.asp

http://www.nrdc.org/onearth/05fal/dispatches3.asp

http://www.defenders.org/releases/pr2004b/pr032504.html KAM 16:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes, Exxon is tickled pink that their little number is so widespread. A large percentage of the people who are interested in the spill aren't even aware that other estimates exist. Exxon has a lot of money, and a lot of influence. Thankfully Wikipedia is an open environment, where information can be published to the world despite those who would rather that public information was not easily available. Now all I have to worry about is some Exxon-hired hit-man tracking me down... if I suddenly stop posting here, and the amount of gallons spilled only shows Exxon's little estimate, someone call the police. Wadsworth 18:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Calling the police? Anyway, Wikipedia policy is what's verifiable, not opinion. I left the 30mb, but toned removed some unnecessary and misleading adjectives. I'm inclinded to believe the Sierra Club, irrespective of Wadsworth's paranoia humor. User:RobertKeller

Amount Spilled, revisited

The State of Alaska issued two separate reports on the oil spill. Both reports stated that the amount of oil spilled was 10.8 mg. Therefore it is accurate to say that the State of Alaska reported that the amount spilled is 10.8 mg. This is also true of the National Transpiration Safety Board and the US Coast Guard. Therefore it is also accurate to say that the Coast Guard and the NTSB reported that 10.8 mg was spilled. No report by Exxon is referenced in this article. To call 10.8 mb “Exxon's estimate” is misleading.

The two reference given in the article don’t support each other, the web site is contradicted by the newspaper article as the newspaper says pieces of the puzzle are missing, referring to the ballast water returned to Valdez, which is the only evidence given in the web site. Also there is no relationship between the amount of water carried by tankers in ballast and the amount of water in the cargo lightered from the EV. Perhaps the article should say that fisherman groups and Defenders of the Wilderness believe or suspect that more was spilled but has never been verified. KAM 18:07, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Your arguments are entirely valid, but there is a bigger picture. The question is "How much does Wikipedia care about getting closest to the truth?"

There are several numbers we are dealing with:

1. How much oil actually spilled
2. How much oil was reported as spilled
3. Estimates of how much oil spilled, according to those who have incentive to make it seem smaller
4. Estimates of how much oil spilled, according to those who have incentive to make it seem larger# Estimates of how much oil spilled, according to those who are neutral

Ideally, Wikipedia should present value #1 in this article, but we will never know how much oil actually spilled, so we can only work with some subset of the remaining values.

These values are related, as the initial report was presented by a group who had incentive to make it seem smaller (there was a fine-per-barrel-spilled law in place). The government was working on their own estimate. However, before they could come up with an estimate, they reached a settlement with Exxon, and dropped the estimation project. It didn't matter anymore. At this point, it was simplest to just use the figure that Exxon had supplied. This had the effect of removing the incentive to make the spill seem larger, by a primary group that would profit from this situation. #2 equals #3 equals #4. Chalk up one point for Exxon.

So does this mean that the reported value is the only one that should be included in the article, when it is definitely biased and almost certainly too low? I would say that this would violate Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Wikipedia should present that reported, accepted figure, but should mention that it is suspect, providing a reasonable alternative and cite references. This is where the values in group #5 are useful.

This raises another issue: Do we trust Exxon to have reported correctly? It should be obvious that making estimations is more of an art than a science. Any reputable firm would not provide a single number. They would provide a range of values, at least three: Lowest, highest, and probable. Exxon only provided a single value. Hmm, which value do you think it was? Wadsworth 13:47, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

"The question is "How much does Wikipedia care about getting closest to the truth?" Good question, the answer is here "Verifiability which says in part "As counter-intuitive as it may seem, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." also here Wikipedia:Reliable sources KAM 18:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, good point. I learned something about wikipedia just now. Thanks for the information! I'm glad that there are articles from reliable sources that cast doubt on the most commonly published figure of 10.8 million gallons. :) Currently I remain in my opinion that two esimates should be prominent in the article: The widespread figure of 10.8 million, and a second figure, arguably more accurate, that originates outside of Exxon's wallet, with citations to the published articles as sources. Wadsworth 20:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

What is the justification of removing information from official reports? Sources have been provided. The USCG, NTSB and the EPA are the leading goverment organization on this subject. KAM 14:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm in favor of more information, with sources cited. ExxonMobil has been very successful at promoting their estimate as to spill size, which is laughably small. Even the EPA publishes their figure! But I think that readers of this page are also entitled to the information that indicates that the spill was probably about 3 times the size Exxon would like everyone to believe. Wadsworth 15:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I have added the [citation needed] because, unless I've overlooked it, there is no source provided that shows that there is an "Exxon's initial report" Without a source, calling 10.8 mg "Exxon's number" is misleading. Secondly: "None of the estimates of the size of the spill have ever been verified" Again, this seems to claim that the USCG and the NTSB and others simply used an estimate provided by Exxon. I don't think a source has been provided which shows that. KAM 14:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

"Defenders of Wildlife believe that the spill was much larger than reported, that about 30 million gallons spilled into the ocean pointing out that oil reclaimed from the damaged tanker (which was the basis for Exxon's calculations) was later discovered to have a large amount of seawater in it" This is not support by the source which says: "many analysts now believe that Exxon significantly underreported the actual volume of the spill." KAM 12:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, good catch. Looks like I got my citation in the wrong spot or something. I'll fix it as soon as I have a few minutes to look at it in more depth, so I get it right. Thanks! Wadsworth 17:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The issue here is quality of sources. USCG, NTSB, Alaska EPA and others that report 10.8 meet Wikipedia standards for sources namely: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Wikipedia:Verifiability. However the soundtruth web site does not meet Wikipedia standards for a good source. It appears to be an ad (which likely violates Wikipedia policy) for a book and is "self-published". The author is also not an expert in maritime matters, the views expressed are a minority view and the newspaper article contradicts the web site . Wikipedia's policy is here: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view check "Undue weight" which says in part If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents; "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not." The adherents to this viewpoint are Ott (who has a book to sell), and some anecdotal evidence. I think that is an extremely small minority and therefore does not belong in this article.I don't think Ott's website is a suitable source. Anyone else? KAM 00:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

KAM, so, your position is that if someone does a good enough job of disseminating distorted information, such that their "facts" are spread all over the media, then Wikipedia should just repeat the same data that "everyone knows", and ignore even a mention that there exists evidence to the contrary? How about we just sum up the whole Wikipedia database with the words "Mostly Harmless"? I have an idea. Let's take a shortcut, and invoke Godwin's Law right away. It's heading that direction anyway. Let's say that Hitler reported to the media that "10.8 hundred" Jews died due to a regrettable wartime governmental oversight involving food deliveries to their community. The media instantly spread the story all over the papers. A few months later, some other folks said, "hang on, how did Hitler get that figure? Where's the paper trail? How come there are six million fresh graves in Germany?" but the papers don't want to go back and change it, that would be admitting they didn't research properly in the first place, just took initial public statement at face value. My personal belief is that Exxon's "estimate" is laughably low. When an independant goverment team started to dig into the question of the size of the spill, Exxon quickly settled, thus stopping the need for investigation in that direction. The readers of Wikipedia deserve to have at least a reference, a pointer to this information. Wadsworth 04:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

tell me morre about this!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rkstwo (talk • contribs) 22:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality & Accuracy

I don't think it's right to say that the spill was "the worst environmental disaster at sea." a) "worst" is a relative measure. b) The Exxon Valdez spill is not even in the top 50 largest oil spills. Markmichaelh 02:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

In regards to b), that list uses Exxon's reported (and disputed!) figure of 10.8 million gallons spilled. It's very likely that about 30 million gallons were spilled, which brings the Exxon Valdez disaster much higher on the list. Even so, I agree with you, "worst" is certainly an opinion. I'll edit it. Wadsworth 16:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

"The Exxon Valdez oil spill was one of the most devastating environmental disasters ever to occur at sea. The spill not only affected animals, but it affected plants and many environmentalists" This is certainly true, but doesn't it sound a bit odd to group environmentalists with plants and animals in this fashion? I'll try to rephrase it/Marxmax 15:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I wish to respectfully disagree with the first comment posted, as i have live in Valdez Alaska for some time now, and have learned much about the spill. It was not the amount spilled that made it the "worst" disaster, it was the fact that it killed so many animals, and that it affected so much coast line area that could not be easily repaired. user: Anonymous 12:05, December 30, 2006

I think the new wording appeases both sides of the argument, although technically not the worst oil spill ever it was still one of the most devastating ones in recent memory, and the article reflects that well.Shadows604 13:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

You also have to consider the type of oil spilt, crude oil does more damage per gallon than say, diesel, go to the wikipedia page on oil spills and you will see what I mean. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 123.3.51.45 (talk) 08:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC).

Cost of clean-up outside of Exxon

Could anyone find/edit/cite websites that state the costs of clean-up outside of Exxon? It mentions a private company using disperants. There was also a trial burn, swimmers used. All of that can't be from Exxon, can it?

Also, should inflation costs from 1989 to 2007 be there? (They're on the page already) Disinclination 15:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I added a brief section on the types of costs imposed by the spill, and external link to an article that discusses the costs in more detail--Energyadonis 11:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The Ship

First sentence of this paragraph is incomplete "...including a clause prohibiting vessels that had caused oil spills of more than 1 million US gallons (3,800 m³). " - what are the vessels prohibited from? The TAPS trade.

Also, in the LEGAL BATTLES section, the "Known Drunk" wasn't captaining the ship (despite media images). The helmsman was the "known drunk".

The captain of the Exxon Valdez was infact inebreated. He ran aground a well known reef in this area, that would have easily shown up on his radar. I have lived in Valdez for a couple of years, and the captain of the Exxon VAldez is a local joke. We named one of out gas stations after him (not an Exxon, we have no Exxons in Valdez), and it is the funniest thing around because it is a well known fact that the captain was the drunk aboard the ship, and was directing it.

Rarely does an incident boil down to just one person. Though the captain was known to have consumed alcohol and had a history of alcohol troubles, it is an oversimplification to say a drunken captain ran the ship aground.

-The helmsman had a poor history regarding his abilities and sobriety but moved throughout the industry from vessel to vessel.

-The 3rd mate was supposed to be relieved by the 2nd mate (the navigation officer on a merchant vessel) prior to the grounding but opted to let him continue sleeping in repayment of a favor. The captain did not know of this.

-The vessel's sail time was moved ahead several hours, something the captain found out about only when he returned to the ship.

-There was a great deal of pressure on the Coast Guard to keep the shipping lanes open, despite the ice intrusion concerns of many tanker captains.

-The cleanup gear was buried under several feet of snow, slowing the response.

-The media friendly beach-washing did more harm than good.

Why isn't any of this in the article? Because Exxon had their scapegoat, the governments didn't want to get any more blame than necessary, and the area's infrastructure wasn't equipped to deal with the crisis at hand. So many people showed up in Valdez that families were renting out their houses to response workers while they slept in tents in their own yards! Consequently, many, many things fell through the cracks. Given the political nature of the incident, you can be sure that every agency picked through their reports very well before releasing them. The City of Valdez can hardly claim innocence - the residents profited mightily from oil industry and from the spill. Someday, when the legal issues are behind everyone, the truth will come out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.242.30.154 (talk) 23:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Sources

The article says: "However, some groups such as Defenders of Wildlife believe that the spill was much larger than reported, that about 30 million gallons [6][7] spilled into the ocean, pointing out that oil reclaimed from the damaged tanker (which was the basis for Exxon's calculations) was later discovered to have a large amount of seawater in it[8]"

None of the sources sited show Defenders of Wildlife believes that about 30 million gallons was spilled. They do not point out that the oil reclaimed had water in it. They do not show that this was the basis for Exxon's calculations. As is discussed above in the section Amount Spilled, and Amount spilled revisited the site listed appearers to me to be a book ad. I suggest making a separate page, perhaps about Ott as it is a very small minority who believe this. KAM 17:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

References

I have started fixing the reference tags in this article I will finish the job in the next couple of hours Ferdie33 05:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I just read reference 13 and have been unable to find the information that the reference is there to support.

Exxon recovered a significant portion of clean-up and legal expenses through insurance claims[12] and tax deductions for the loss of the Valdez.[13]

Tax deduction for the loss of the Valdez? They didn't lose it, its not a matter of "Hey, where did the Valdez go?" They ran it up on some rocks, towed it to a dock, patched it up and are still using it. The only line entry for the 1989 finances that mentions the Exxon Valdez is one referenced as the "Valdez provision" which is described in later text as money being set aside ($1.68billion) from the budget to meet any further incuring costs due to legal matters surrounding the spill. I have seen no evidence within the reference material to support the claim that they recieved a tax benifit for running the valdez on the rocks. Pissedpat 17:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Reference 29 also does not seem to support the claim that the spill caused the bankruptcy of Chugach Alaska Corp. If you read the article, the author spends 99% of the time talking about other things, especially poor business decisions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.192.35.63 (talk) 01:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup of "Amount spilled" and "Legal battles" sections

I did some work on what seemed to be the most problematic sections of this article. First, the debate over the "amount spilled" section has gone on long enough. The factual dispute has been sufficiently incorporated into the article text. I could find no citation for the "30 million gallons" statistic (as noted above), but I did find a somewhat credible estimate of 25 million gallons. As this is only the opinion of one surveyor against a massive consensus for the "11 million" statistic, I wonder if the balance is still appropriate. I also removed a citation that, as others have commented, linked to a page that was basically an ad for somebody's self-published book. I believe that this section incorporates what factual dispute exists into the text, so I've removed the factual dispute and citation/verify tags. They no longer apply -- all information is factual, verified and cited as far as I can tell.

The debate over the number is overblown anyway, as 11 million gallons is still a lot of oil, and the most salient aspects of the spill are those that pertain to its impact on the Sound and surrounding areas -- not whatever inconceivably huge number we assign to it.

The "Legal battles" (now "Litigation") section is far from perfect, but it's better now. The latter half of the section had metastacized into what amounted to an impromptu "trivia" section -- a dubious (at times incomprehensible) one at that. I removed the less important trivia and incorporated significant points into the text of the article. I also corrected and cited an important quote about the "drunk" piloting the ship. This section could still use some work/fleshing out, but hopefully I've gotten things going in the right direction. TPIRman 05:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Punitive Damages

In 1994, in the case of Baker vs. Exxon, an Anchorage jury awarded $287 million for actual damages and $5 billion for punitive damages. The punitive damages amount was based on a single year's profit by Exxon at that time.

Exxon appealed again, sending the case back to court to be considered in regard to a recent Supreme Court ruling in a similar case, which caused Judge Holland to increase the punitive damages to $4.5 billion, plus interest.

it says the amount was increased to a lower number, is that a typo? Perhaps it should be re worded that he lowered the amount but then tacked on interest there by increasing it, because who is to say the amount of interest would push that over 5 billion$ i am no math whiz so please correct me if i am wrong

The paragraph between those two paragraphs explains how and why the punitive damages were reduced to $4 billion before being raised to $4.5 billion. TPIRman 19:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Why is Exxon's 2006 profit mentioned here? That is figure is far removed from the company's circumstances the year of the spill, and as such adds nothing to the article, except to make one less likely to feel sorry for the company. As such, it's inserted in a fashion that makes the article more biased, and should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.148.45.202 (talk) 02:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I've updated the article to include the results of Exxon v. Baker; the opinion linked to is just the slip opinion and as such is not a full citation yet. Just a note that the opinion number and a more permanent URL need to be found. Patrick O'Leary (talk) 14:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

People getting sick

I hope I am editing correctly, anyway, at [1]they mention people getting cancer and other really nasty thing from cleaning up the spill. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 123.3.51.45 (talk) 08:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC).

Socioeconomic impact

Here is a pdf file [2]about social factors, (vol 2 only) and here [3]is a book review of "Nature's State". One of the themes of the book is that part of the reason that the spill had such an impact on the American public is because "Alaska has been situated as a sublime wilderness area in the nation's spatial imagination." KAM 13:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Who was right?

    The environmentalists are right.  Exxon spilled 11 million gallons of oil.   Exxon only cleaned the surface of the beaches.  They also thought that the dead animals didn’t matter.  They thought they could get away with destroying the environment in Prince William Sound.  The oil leak affected animals throughout Prince William Sound.  
  Exxon tried to clean it up but once the beaches looked clean pulled out, leaving the beach under the rocks covered in oil.  The environmentalists just put their hands in the beach, and when they pulled their hands out they were covered oil.  Exxon said they were treated.  But all they did was clean up the tops of the beaches.  They were trying to cover up one of the largest oil spills in the world.  Their captain was also drunk when they hit the reef.  
    Exxon tried to clean it up and spent a lot of money. 

They spent two billion dollars trying to clean it up. But all Exxon cared about when they were doing this was their reputation.

They only cared that people thought they cared about the environment. 
That is why the environmentalists are right. 

I believe that if there was a spill like this near Antarctica then the fragile ecosystem could be severely damaged and many species could become instinct.

We must preserve the last peace zone on our earth!

Wikiscanner controversy

Are the reports true that Exxon employees have been editing this page in order to skew the data on the environmental effects of the oil spill and to remove paragraphs that indicate wrongdoing by Exxon? Is it something that should be discussed on this page? Maybe an admin could comment on the policy on corporate edits. Mardiste 15:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Is the findings of the WikiScanner really notable? First of all, it could be actions of one individual and not representative of the company. Secondly there ought to be a conflict of interest if Wikipedia reports things that happen to Wikipedia. Thirdly, has this incident been reported in regular newsmedia? Otherwise it isn't notable... / Fred-J 01:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

This is interesting, and sets a unqiue precedent. Should edit attempts by the subject of an articles to obfuscate, remove, or otherwise inaccurately state information within the article be noted within the article itself? Obviously this could not happen so easily with other encyclopaedias, but may very well have occurred regardless. Personally I don't think it should be mentioned unless it was a high profile event, but I'm not sure that altering the entry on wikipedia really has that much of an effect on society. However I think an admin should be consulted on the issue. Halogenated (talk) 03:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

250 bald eagles?

Thousands of animals died immediately; the best estimates include 250,000–500,000 seabirds, 2,800–5,000 sea otters, approximately 12 river otters, 300 harbour seals, 250 bald eagles, and 22 orcas, as well as the destruction of billions of salmon and herring eggs.

^ How the hell could an ocean oil tanker spill kill 250 bald eagles? Are they even in the same range? Klosterdev 01:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

-- Eagles fish for salmon, if they pull a salmon out of an oil slick they eat oil. The 250 dead would be a reference to how many dead eagles were found during the cleanup. Pissedpat 17:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

54 million millimeters of oil?

Who measures oil (or any liquid) in millimeters? And who says "millions of milli-anything?" I mean, shouldn't you convert to terameters or something larger? Just hoping to spark a discussion. - Gr0ff

Size of spill

I added a sentence that places the spill in the context of historic oil spills, and good link to an article on the subject in the Encyclopedia of Earth.Energyadonis 00:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

General article cleanup

The article is still in need of a good cleanup. An article of this magnitude needs serious attention - it was a HUGE deal, and the standard by which all other marine oil spill are still compared. The rating of low importance is odd considering the large amount of media attention it generated and its continued relevance to this day. The article is generally written in a somewhat personalised point of view, and lacks appropriate citations for many if not most points. For now, I am removing this section on cleanup:

"It now turns out that dispersants may be worse than the oil itself. Concentrations of 10 parts per million of the detergents are acutely toxic to many marine mammals and plants, and large numbers of shellfish such as limpets and barnacles on inter-tidal rocks in the spray area were killed."

As it is uncited, and misleading as written. There is concern over this, but this reeks of partiality. Trust me, the oil far FAR more devastating. The issue was probably more tied in with the increased solubility of the toxic components of the oil when mixed with a surfactant - what were they thinking? As for other info, I will rewrite, remove, and add citations as necessary, but I am very cramped for time these days, so my hands are somewhat tied.Halogenated (talk) 16:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I am procrastinating and I did a bit of reworking, specifically on the cleanup and environmental consequences section. It's not much, but it's a start. Here's a very basic outline list of work that needs to be addressed or added to these sections in terms of ongoing and long term effects:

Fisheries

-biological impacts

• eggs/spawing
• residual contamination

-economic

MArine mammals

-otter

• grooming contamination
• ingestion from prey

-dolphin/cetations

• ingestion from prey,

Birds

-ingestion from prey/plants

-effects on eggs?

Kelp Shoreline ecosystems

-Plants

-Animals

-microorganisms

-etc

coral

-surfactant toxicity

-Soil contamination

Halogenated (talk) 18:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Need a 101 course on the ship itself

This article could use a concise summary of the Exxon Valdez at the time of the spill; length, tonnage, horsepower, date built, crewing, etc. I was in search of the length and had to find it elsewhere. (For what it's worth, it's reported as 986 feet).

Stan Jones Anchorage, Alaska —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.237.168.101 (talk) 01:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Severe Revision Necessary

There had been such a large amount of ongoing valdalism to the article for the last while that it requires a serious revision to a much older edit. It also needs to be locked to established editors only. I'd like to try and preserve factual and helpful edits from this period, but this may be too difficult to do. I will look for a proper previous edit to revert the article to, and would encourage all valid contributors to re-add their information. I'd be looking to do this within the next week or so. Any objections?Halogenated (talk) 23:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Second Warning. I will be doing a serious revision within a few days. Any objections?Halogenated (talk) 04:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

While doing admin work today, I ran across this article and I agree - it was a mess. I had the energy, so I undertook a rewrite. I condensed and formatted all the references, removed duplicate and/or contradictory material, copyedited, rearranged, massaged, smoothed, and overhauled. I managed to remove each and every {{fact}} tag I found with a readily available online reference, without any difficulty at all. I looked at each and every EL in the EL section and listed as an inline reference, and I hope I've got the vandalism and crap out. I mean, can we at least agree that plankton is, like, eaten by organisms up farther on the food chain? Even _that_ had a fact tag stuck on it.

I don't get into edit wars, but I hope I've made some progress. I'll check back in a few days. - KrakatoaKatie 07:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

"Critics say this video is reputed to misrepresent the clean-up process.[11]" No. The (one) critic cited, Dr. Michael Fry, says that the video blatantly misrepresents the cleanup. "I say this video is reputed to misrepresent the cleanup process" isn't much of a criticism. Better would be "Research physiologist Michael Fry claims the video misrepresents the process." Not sure if the de-weaseled version is stronger, or weaker, or even that relevant since it's one guy, though there may well be more authoritative sources saying the same thing. -12.38.10.178 (talk) 18:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Double haul

I continue to hear from a number of independent sources that if Valdez were double hauled it would likely of sunk and would of been a bigger disaster. Do you think the section on aftermath should be updated to reflect that point?Mantion (talk) 06:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Care to mention who your independent sources are? A double hulled (not hauled) vessel has basically the same structure as a single hulled ship but has a second outer layer to protect the main body of the ship from damage and increase buoyancy. If the Valdez had been double hulled running onto the rocks would have damaged the outer layer but not likely have punctured the inner layer that holds the oil. I am at a bit of a loss to determine how this would result in the ship sinking. Admittedly current practices within the shipping industry of filling this empty space with oil and treating it like an extra tank would result in oil still being spilled... but the capacity of these buffer spaces is so much less than the main tank that if this happened the resulting spill would be greatly reduced. Pissedpat (talk) 18:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

RE: The aftermath

I don't understand the sentence:

In the aftermath of the Exxon Valdez incident, the U.S. Congress passed the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, including a clause prohibiting vessels that had caused oil spills of more than one million U.S. gallons (3,800 m³).

Does this mnean you can't build ships like the kind that spill oil? You can't use ships to haul oil if it might spill more than 1million gallons? You can't spill more than a million gallons at a time? What the heck is prohibited here? Padillah (talk) 19:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Ah, here it is – vessels that have spilled more than one million gallons into a marine environment after March 22, 1989, are barred from operating in Prince William Sound. No other vessel at the time met the specific criteria of having spilled more than one million gallons into Prince William Sound – nor has a vessel met it since – and that's why Exxon argued the law was effectively a bill of attainder and punished them unfairly and illegally. Valdez was their largest tanker and they needed it to move product out of Alaska. They lost. KrakatoaKatie 08:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiScanner stuff

I pulled this item out of the article during the above-mentioned revamp, and I've no other place to put it.

• Following the advent of WikiScanner, it came to light that someone from within Exxon Mobil had altered the descriptions of the oil spill in this article which downplayed its severity.[4]

I don't know who added it, but it's not appropriate for the article itself. - KrakatoaKatie 07:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC) The boat is now called west river —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.213.237.231 (talk) 21:51, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

How is this 'Low importance?'

i find it saddening that the wikiprojects moitroing this article marked it as low importance when it is one of the most devastating and famous shipwreck tradgedies of all time! Also, the case i still going on today. ~Meldshal42 21:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest in the grand scheme of things this is not terribly important, and certainly not one of the most devastating nautical disasters. It also wasn't a shipwreck. Halogenated (talk) 03:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

protecting the article

Anyone else here thinking that since this article is being vandalised almost daily it might make sense to reapply protection? Halogenated (talk) 03:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Exxon litigants to get tax breaks

At Proposed bailout of United States financial system some one posted that this included Tax breaks and credit extensions for the following: Litigants in the 1989 Exxon-Valdez oil spill (Sec. 504). hope that helps the people here. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 09:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

External links - twice

There are 2 sections called "External links". They should be combined. Thanks Kvsh5 (talk) 11:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Article security

Due to the attempts of Exxon to downplay the accident and change this article, I think this article should be put on semi-protected status. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.79.223.118 (talk) 01:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

This article is bias towards environmentalists. Adding a neutrality tag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.202.83.63 (talk) 16:20, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this should be semi protected.

The helmsman: Robert Kagen

I was told by someone in the shipping industry, which I happen to work in myself, about the helmsman Robert Kagen. I was told that that either the crew of the vessel or the company had tried to fire him several times for being an incompetent helmsman. But, because he was the nephew of one of the higer ups in the union, they were unable to fire him even though they wanted to. Has anyone ever heard this before? --JS747 (talk) 15:26, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

No, but it sounds a lot like a conspiracy theory. AadaamS (talk) 10:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I know that there was talk about this and one of the two Anchorage newspapers (that existed at the time) possibly reported this. If someone is in or has access to Anchorage news archives or The University of Alaska Anchorage's library this might be verified. It would be interesting to have the archives searched and see further evidence to this Mohayrix (talk) 06:26, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

How did the media react to the Exxon-Validez oil spill?

I have to do a project for school and I have to find out things like How long was the event covered? When, in relationship to the time that the event happened, did the coverage start? Who was affected by the event? Who saw, influenced, or was part of the event? Why did the media choose to cover the event? What stake did a particular network(s) have in reporting this event? Why was this event chosen rather than or in addition to others?

Also were there any media polls taking on this event? If you could just give me some websites so i could find this information that's be great :) Thanks 65.40.226.229 (talk) 18:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Multiple causes for the accident

I was just reading through the Open Courseware for "System Safety" at MIT. Leveson there states that there were many more causes for the severe impact of this accident than mere navigational error. Among these were: iceberg monitoring equipment was not installed which resulted in Exxon Valdez travelling outside the normal sea lane in order to avoid icebergs. The radar station in Valdez (responsible for monitoring sea traffic in that area) had been replaced with much less powerful equipment which did not cover the Bligh Reef, which meant that the radar could not monitor position of tankers where the accident occurred. Coast Guard at Valdez did not perform safety inspection of the Exxon Valdez due to staff cuts. The Coast Guard had discontinued the monitoring of tankers around Bligh Reef without the tanker crews being told.

| See page 12 of "Course Notes", available at this MIT webpage.

I may come across as a conspiracy theorist, but it does sound as if city officials and Exxon blamed everything on Captain Hazelwood when in reality it was a long story of mismanagement that caused the accident. If this is taught at a respected US academic institution, I think this article ought to include sections on the wider issues around the accident. AadaamS (talk) 10:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Remote location

"Prince William Sound's remote location (accessible only by helicopter, plane and boat)" Huh? Where in any ocean of the world is there better accessibility? Ships don't travel routes on superhighways. Better information than this is needed to support the claim of unusual remoteness. Altgeld (talk) 06:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Recovery Of Ecosystem

It's now 21 years on from this disaster. To what extent has the ecosystem recovered? Is there any part of the ecosystem that has not recovered?

What studies have been done?

Have populations of fauna recovered to their original levels?

220.237.127.74 (talk) 12:42, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and has Exxon actually paid the fine yet? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.143.57.62 (talk) 12:22, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Some up-to-date answers regarding the aftermath of the Exxon Valdez spill:

• http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/apr/30/rush-limbaugh/rush-limbaugh-says-alaskas-prince-william-sound-no/

'The Trustee Council, formed by the Alaska government to oversee the restoration of the injured ecosystem, concluded the oil is decreasing at a rate of 0 to 4 percent a year, and "at this rate, the remaining oil will take decades and possibly centuries to disappear entirely."... "The vast majority of oil that landed in Alaska is gone," [Craig Tillery] said. But the government dug hundreds of test holes and found pockets of "still fresh-looking oil that is still toxic to the marine environment." In all, they estimated 23,000 gallons (of the 11 million gallons spilled by the Exxon Valdez) remains in isolated pockets of some beaches. "It's buried, you wouldn't see it," said Tillery. "It looks pristine, but it's not pristine if your definition is that there's no oil left." And that oil is still getting into the environment, he said. Sea ducks and sea otters are still exhibiting signs of exposure to oil, he said. And animals such as sea otters, which dig for clams, have released some of the oil trapped under the ground. Most of the wildlife has recovered from the spill, Tillery said, but you also need to consider what you don't see. "You don't see as many killer whales as you did before the spill," he said. "You don't see herrings in the numbers you did before the spill. On the surface, you'd probably say this looks pretty pristine. Underlying that, though, there is still evidence of the spill." "There are beaches where you can turn a shovel and still find oil," said Stan Jones, director of external affairs for the Prince William Sound Regional Citizens Advisory Council. Prince William sound has "mostly recovered visually," Jones said, but to call it pristine is an "overstatement." '

• http://www.evostc.state.ak.us/Universal/Documents/Publications/20th%20Anniversary%20Report/EVOSTC%2020th%20Anniversary%20Status%20Report%202-19-09.doc

"Exxon Corporation agreed to pay $900 million, with annual payments over a 10-year period. The final payment was received in September 2001." AtticusX (talk) 04:09, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Deaths of Clean-Up Crew

I've heard recent reports that all, or virtually all, of the crew that cleaned up the Exxon Valdez Oil spill are dead. A person on CNN being interviewed appeared to be the source for this, but I haven't been able to confirm it. If legit, it would be an important part of the article, I think.

Anyone with better web-fu have other information? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.72.133.194 (talk) 03:29, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• I was also surprised that there is yet no mention of this in the article but I think I understand why. Here's the vid. My audio is not working but if someone can take a listen to this, it's the CNN video that's supposed to mention it, maybe quoting the expert is an option: http://current.com/news/92527985_almost-every-worker-from-exxon-valdez-oil-spill-is-now-dead. But in the end it boils down to this: http://message.snopes.com/showthread.php?t=62315 ... very little confirmation out there about this report other then the one expert saying it on CNN. Online sources tend to link back to each other or the video or the source is a banned domain on the wikipedia spam blacklist. Obviously there are many difficulties in getting at the real data, such as the average age of workers involved in cleanup 21 years ago, cause of death over time. Even the exact number of workers is something that is not sure. I feel that finding out where the expert got her data, what studies done by whom, would be vital before putting it into the article. Dogsgomoo (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:43, 1 August 2010 (UTC).

There was enough talk of this between spill workers and the public that I included a stanza that adressed this in a song that I wrote and released to the Alaskan public airwaves. I wrote the song from the perspective of a spill worker and environmentalist. I am still alive and am sure that there are others as well. To the best of my knowledge the toxicity of cleaning the oil did in fact have human health consequenses and being a spill worker may have contributed to the decline my personal health. The politics of this disaster will leave many facts covered up, especially the behind the scenes of the spill workers. We were working in ankle deep oil that covered Nuka Beach on Nuka Island in the Kenei Fiord's and the fumes did in fact have some people being medically treated. It was possibly in the Alaska media at the time but I am no longer there and do not have the resources to investigate further. The average age of spill workers were between 25-35 at the time.Mohayrix (talk) 07:26, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Removed para

In summary, the Exxon Shipping Company 1) failed to maintain its radar equipment in operating condition, 2) sailed into unsafe waters without an adequate safety plan, and 3) allowed a captain with a drinking problem to continue to be in charge of the vessel, which led to the third mate (who didn't turn on the radar) to be in charge of the ship rather than the captain, who presumably had better training. Whether the captain would have turned on the radar had he been sober and in charge is an unknown, but it seems to be a fair inference that the company's overly-relaxed attitude toward safety left a great deal to be desired. In addition, the oil industry did not live up to its agreement to use double-hulled tankers and state-of-the-art iceberg monitoring equipment; the tanker was not tracked properly and the crew was not informed of this; the crew was small, overworked, and in a rush; Exxon Valdez was not inspected as it should have been; and no one was prepared to contain a spill as large as this one.

1. largely a repeat of what is already there several times
2. un-referenced
3. "Whether the captain would have turned on the radar had he been sober" - no he wouldn't according to the article/sources it had been broken for a year.

Rich Farmbrough, 10:21, 5 October 2010 (UTC).

Subtle POV

Watch out for this - all to easy to write stuff like "100,000 to as many as 250,000" compare - "as few as 100,000 to as many as 250,000" - "as few as 100,000 to 250,000" - better is "100,000 to 250,000" whether these numbers are "few" or "many" depends on many factors, mainly perspective (for example are we thinking about the sea-bird population 100 years later? is the population 300,000 or 10,000,000? are we thinking globally or locally? are we thinking about suffering of the animals or the environmental impact?) Rich Farmbrough, 10:40, 5 October 2010 (UTC).

Size , and relative size of spill

Just some notes which I hope help:

1. According to NOAA most of the spill occurred in the first 6 hours - this supports the 11.2 m t estimates - larger estimates have come to the fore due to a publishing event - which is not to say they are incorrect, but need treating with caution.
2. Environmental impact - to what extent is the impact and perception because the spill was near-shore? The Hawaiian spill of 1977 was bigger and we don;t even have an article on it.
3. How many qualifiers should we include when classifying something as "largest"
   1. by volume
   2. maritime
   3. in the US
   4. (coastal waters)
   5. up to then.

Also comparing this with Chernobyl, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Bhopal, the Dust Bowl, the Sahara, deforestation, the Great sparrow campaign. the creation of the fens etc. the severity of the environmental impact seems overstated. Indeed, I am fairly sure received wisdom is that it is not individual oil spills, however large,that pose significant environmental risk, but the rapid and widespread succession of them over modern times.

Rich Farmbrough, 13:27, 5 October 2010 (UTC).

Some pertinent sentences from the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council FAQ (2007):

"The Exxon Valdez spill, though still one of the largest ever in the U.S., has dropped from the top 50 internationally. However, it is widely considered the number one spill worldwide in terms of damage to the environment. The timing of the spill, the remote and spectacular location, the thousands of miles of rugged and wild shoreline, and the abundance of wildlife in the region combined to make it an environmental disaster well beyond the scope of other spills."

"The Exxon Valdez was carrying 53,094,510 gallons or 1,264,155 barrels of oil. Approximately 11 million gallons -- the equivalent of 257,000 barrels or 38,800 metric tonnes -- were spilled. The amount of spilled oil is roughly equivalent to 125 Olympic-sized swimming pools. More than four summers and $2.1 billion (Exxon’s account) were spent before the effort was called off. Not all beaches were cleaned; some beaches remain oiled today."

"From Bligh Reef, the spill stretched 470 miles southwest to the village of Chignik on the Alaska Peninsula. Approximately 1,300 miles of shoreline were oiled. 200 miles were heavily or moderately oiled (obvious impact); 1,100 miles were lightly or very lightly oiled (light sheen or occasional tarballs). The spill region contains more than 9,000 miles of shoreline."

AtticusX (talk) 19:54, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Litigation

I am a former commercial fisherman, drift gillnet in Bristol Bay, Alaska, before and after the Exxon Valdez spill. This is entirely a personal observation, especially the time-line involved. We were classed as "Unoiled Fisheries Claim Category", as the Bristol Bay fish (King and Sockeye Salmon) were not literally "oiled", but we suffered a significant loss of income, due to the confusion of the spill, and the unknown effect at that time. Approximate values (not a fixed price at all canneries) for the 1988 season were around $2.00+/#, while the value for post-Exxon were in the neighborhood of $0.60/#. When dealing with a per vessel production of 100,000# to 200,000# or more (at least in the Oak Harbor, Washington fleet), the difference in earnings is greatly magnified. Today, I finally received my "Exxon Supplemental Claim Distribution" - five checks equaling maybe 10% of the income reduction of years 1989 & 1990 --- and only 21 years and 7 months after the spill! A warning and a lesson for any or all that may be in similar litigation. ````sailorto —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sailorto (talk • contribs) 03:34, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Barrels & tons

I think it would be very useful, if the page contained a link to barrel or oil barrel. It would render the volumes involved more readily intelligible for people around world who understand volumes in litres, for instance. The conversion to metric tons is useful, yes, but the conversion code makes it impossible (or at least too difficult for me) to incorporate in the first instance of the world "barrel" the link to the wikipedia article barrel or oil barrel. If some one knows how to insert that link, I think many would appreciate it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Npyrhone (talk • contribs) 11:04, 11 October 2011 (UTC) ujhygtfrdefrgthyjuhygtfr

Only Alaska damaged, or more?

Article says "2100 km of coastline was oiled". Does that mean the entire southcoast of Alaska? Or does it mean that the canadian westcoast was affected as well? Maybe even the Washington state coastline? Just curious.

Stein S, Oslo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.209.88.240 (talk) 17:33, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Bad Link

I'm not sure what the protocol is, but the link referring to: Nancy G. Leveson (July 2005). "Software System Safety". Ocw.mit.edu. pp. 18–20. Retrieved July 30, 2010 sends the user to a page that says "Page Not Found." --71.198.44.125 (talk) 17:46, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your note. Archive link is added now. Beagel (talk) 18:06, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Links

>> Exxon Valdez spill effects linger 25 years on(Lihaas (talk) 18:34, 24 March 2014 (UTC)).

What is a "master"?

The article contains this line: "Exxon Shipping Company failed to supervise the master and"

There is no link or explanation as to what the "master" is Zedshort (talk) 01:58, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

The dab page for "Master" contains the following entry: "Master, the Captain of a ship". In other words, what you're quoting from above was likely taken from a report laden with OfficialSpeak, with Hazelwood being referred to by terminology unfamiliar to civilians. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 04:21, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Size of spill

The article on the Exxon Valdez mentions the spill being between 10.8 and 31.7 million gallons - but here it's between 11 and 38 million gallons ... the upper bound is 20% higher! Is there any reliable source that has dependable figures? Prisoner of Zenda (talk) 04:51, 24 March 2015 (UTC)