View source for Exxon Valdez oil spill

{{short description|1989 industrial disaster in Alaska}}
{{Italic title|string=Exxon Valdez}}
{{Use mdy dates|date=March 2019}} 
{{Infobox oil spill
| spill_name     = ''Exxon Valdez'' oil spill
| image          = Exxon Valdez Cleanup.jpg
| image_size     = 300
| image_caption  = [[U.S. Navy]] landing craft anchored ashore as numerous personnel position hoses during oil clean-up efforts on [[List of islands of Alaska|Smith Island]] on May 11, 1989
| location       = [[Prince William Sound]], [[Alaska]]
| coordinates    = {{Coord|60.8400|-146.8625|region:US-AK_type:event|display=title,inline}}
| spill_date     = {{start date and age|1989|3|24}}
| cause          = Grounding of the ''[[Exxon Valdez]]'' oil tanker
| operator       = [[Exxon Shipping Company]]
| volume	     = {{convert|10.8|e6USgal|oilbbl m3|abbr=on|lk=in}} (or 37,000 [[Tonne|metric tonnes]])
| area           = 
| coast          = {{convert|1300|mi|abbr=on}}
}}
The '''''Exxon Valdez'' oil spill''' was a major [[environmental disaster]] that occurred in [[Alaska]]'s [[Prince William Sound]] on March 24, 1989. The spill occurred when ''[[Exxon Valdez]]'', an oil [[supertanker]] owned by [[Exxon Shipping Company]], bound for [[Long Beach, California|Long Beach]], California, struck [[Prince William Sound]]'s [[Bligh Reef]], {{convert|6|mi|abbr=on}} west of [[Tatitlek, Alaska]] at 12:04&nbsp;a.m. The tanker [[oil spill|spilled]] more than {{convert|10|e6USgal|oilbbl}} (or 37,000 [[tonne]]s)<ref>{{cite web |title=Properties of Prudhoe Bay (2004) (ESTS #679) |url=http://donnees.ec.gc.ca/data/substances/scientificknowledge/spills-technology-databases/physiochemical-properties-of-petroleum-products/Prudhoe%20Bay%20(2004)%20(ESTS%20679)%20Properties%20Summary-EN.pdf |website=Environment and Climate Change Canada |publisher=Government of Canada |access-date=March 19, 2019 |date=2004 |archive-date=May 7, 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170507191934/http://donnees.ec.gc.ca/data/substances/scientificknowledge/spills-technology-databases/physiochemical-properties-of-petroleum-products/Prudhoe%20Bay%20(2004)%20(ESTS%20679)%20Properties%20Summary-EN.pdf |url-status=dead }}</ref> of [[Petroleum|crude oil]] over the next few days.<ref name="faq"/>

The ''Exxon Valdez'' spill is the second largest in U.S. waters, after the 2010 [[Deepwater Horizon oil spill|''Deepwater Horizon'' oil spill]], in terms of volume of [[oil]] released.<ref name="histories" /><ref name="nationalgeographic_leahy_20190322">{{Cite magazine| last = Leahy| first = Stephen| title = Exxon Valdez changed the oil industry forever – but new threats emerge| magazine = National Geographic| access-date = October 25, 2019 |date=March 22, 2019| url = https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/03/oil-spills-30-years-after-exxon-valdez/| archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20190325185337/https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/03/oil-spills-30-years-after-exxon-valdez/| url-status = dead| archive-date = March 25, 2019}}</ref> Prince William Sound's remote location, accessible only by helicopter, plane, or boat, made government and industry response efforts difficult and made existing response plans especially hard to implement. The region is a [[habitat]] for [[salmon]], [[sea otter]]s, [[Pinniped|seals]], and [[seabird]]s. The oil, extracted from the [[Prudhoe Bay Oil Field]], eventually affected {{convert|1300|mi|km}} of coastline, of which {{convert|200|mi|km}} were heavily or moderately oiled.<ref name="faq" /><ref name="SpillAroundUs" /><ref name="Shigenaka">{{cite web|last1=Shigenaka|first1=Gary|title=Twenty-Five Years After the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill: NOAA's Scientific Support, Monitoring, and Research|url=http://response.restoration.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/Exxon_Valdez_25YearsAfter_508_0.pdf|website=Office of Response and Restoration|publisher=National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration|access-date=January 17, 2017|location=Seattle|date=2014}}</ref>

==Spill==
{{more citations needed section|date=March 2023}}
[[File:Exxon Valdez Oil Spill (13266806523).jpg|left|thumb|The ''[[Exxon Valdez]]'' a few hours after it was grounded.]]
''Exxon Valdez'' was carrying {{convert|53.1|e6USgal|oilbbl m3}} of oil, of which approximately {{convert|10.8|e6USgal|oilbbl m3}} were spilled into the [[Prince William Sound]].<ref name="faq" /><ref name="histories" /><ref name="Scientific American" /><ref name="greenpeace" /><ref name="AUTOREF2" />

The ship docked at the Valdez Marine Terminal<ref>{{cite web |title=Valdez Marine Terminal |url=https://www.alyeska-pipe.com/valdez-marine-terminal/ |publisher=Alyeska Pipeline Service Company |access-date=25 November 2021 |date=2021}}</ref> at 11:30&nbsp;p.m. on March 22, 1989. Loading of crude oil was completed late in the day on the 23rd. The tanker left the terminal at 9:12&nbsp;p.m., March 23, 1989 (the deck log shows that it was clear of the dock at 9:21{{nbsp}}p.m.), loaded with 53,094,510 gallons (1,264,155 barrels) of crude oil. [[Joseph Hazelwood|Captain Joseph Hazelwood]] retired to his cabin at 9:25{{nbsp}}p.m. [[Harbor pilot]] William Murphy and [[Third Mate]] Gregory Cousins were accompanied by a single tug for the passage through the Valdez Narrows – a journey of about 7 miles. The pilot left the bridge shortly after the vessel left the narrows, at 11:24{{nbsp}}p.m. At this point, the captain was called to the bridge. Cousins helped the pilot disembark from the vessel, leaving the captain as the only officer on the bridge. At 11:25{{nbsp}}p.m. ''Exxon Valdez'' reported that the pilot had left. The third mate advised traffic control and decided to deviate from the predetermined traffic lane to avoid small icebergs; a common occurrence since the [[Columbia Glacier (Alaska)|Columbia Glacier]] calved such icebergs nearby. The vessel was placed on a due south course and set on autopilot. At 11:47{{nbsp}}p.m. the vessel left the traffic lane's eastern boundary.

Third Mate Cousins had been on duty for 6 hours and was scheduled to be relieved by [[Second Mate]] Lloyd LeCain Jr. However, due to the long hours that the second mate had worked, Cousins was reluctant to wake him, and remained on duty. Cousins was the only officer on the bridge for most of the night, in violation of company policy. At around midnight on March 24 Cousins began to maneuver the vessel into the traffic lanes. At the same time, the lookout reported that the Bligh Reef light appeared far off the starboard bow at 45 degrees – this was problematic given that the light should have been off the port side. Cousins ordered a course change as the ship was in danger. Captain  Hazelwood was phoned by Cousins, but before their conversation could finish, the ship grounded. At 12:04{{nbsp}}a.m., accompanied by what the helmsman and Cousins described as "a bumpy ride" and "six very sharp jolts" respectively, the ship ran aground on Bligh Reef.

Carried by its own momentum, the ship ended up perched on its middle on a pinnacle of rock. 8 out of 11 cargo holds were punctured. 5.8 million gallons of oil drained from the ship within 3 hours and 15 minutes. 30 minutes after numerous attempts to dislodge the ship under her own power, Captain Hazelwood radioed the Coast Guard informing them of the grounding. For more than 45 minutes after the grounding, the captain attempted to maneuver free of the reef despite being informed by [[First Mate]] James Kunkel that the vessel was not structurally sound without the reef supporting it.<ref>{{cite web|title=Spill, the wreck of the ''Exxon Valdez'' Implications for Safe Marine Transport|url=https://www.arlis.org/docs/vol1/EVOS/1990/21337991.pdf|publisher=State of Alaska|page=7}}</ref>

[[File:OilSheenFromValdezSpill.jpg|thumb|right|During the first few days of the spill, heavy sheens of oil covered large areas of the surface of Prince William Sound.]]

[[File:OilPoolFromValdezSpill.jpeg|thumb|right|Beginning three days after the vessel grounded, a storm pushed large quantities of fresh oil onto the rocky shores of many of the beaches in the Knight Island chain.<ref>{{cite web|title=Exxon Valdez Photos|url=http://response.restoration.noaa.gov/photos/exxon/07.html|publisher=NOAA|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20050714233007/http://response.restoration.noaa.gov/photos/exxon/07.html |archive-date=July 14, 2005 |page=7|quote=Beginning 3 days after the vessel grounded, a storm pushed large quantities of fresh oil onto the rocky shores of many of the beaches in the Knight Island chain.}}</ref> In this photograph, pooled black oil is shown stranded in the rocks]]

Multiple factors have been identified as contributing to the incident:

* Exxon Shipping Company failed to supervise the [[Sea captain|master]] (ship's captain) and provide a rested and sufficient crew for ''Exxon Valdez''. The [[National Transportation Safety Board|NTSB]] found this practice was widespread throughout the industry, prompting a safety recommendation to Exxon and to the industry.<ref Name=NTSB/>
* The third mate failed to properly maneuver the vessel, possibly due to fatigue or excessive workload.<ref Name=NTSB>{{Cite book|title=Practices that relate to the ''Exxon Valdez'' |date=September 18, 1990 |pages=1–6 |place=Washington, DC |publisher=National Transportation and Safety Board |url=https://www.ntsb.gov/Recs/letters/1990/M90_26_31a.pdf |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100611194527/https://www.ntsb.gov/Recs/letters/1990/M90_26_31A.pdf |archive-date=June 11, 2010}}</ref>
* Exxon Shipping Company failed to properly maintain the [[Raytheon]] Collision Avoidance System (RAYCAS) [[radar]], which, if functional, would have indicated to the third mate an impending collision with the [[Bligh Reef]] by detecting the radar reflector placed on the next rock inland from Bligh Reef for the purpose of keeping ships on course. This cause was brought forward by [[Greg Palast]] and is not presented in the official accident report.<ref name="AUTOREF4" />

Captain Hazelwood, who was widely reported to have been drinking heavily that night, was not at the controls when the ship struck the reef. Exxon blamed Hazelwood for the grounding of the tanker, but he accused the corporation of making him a [[scapegoat]].<ref name="AUTOREF4" /><ref name=clv/> 
In a 1990 trial he was charged with criminal mischief, reckless endangerment, and piloting a vessel while intoxicated, but was cleared of the three charges. He was convicted of [[misdemeanor]] negligent discharge of oil. 21 witnesses testified that he did not appear to be under the influence of alcohol around the time of the accident.<ref name=rempel>{{cite news |last1=Rempel |first1=William C. |author1-link=William Rempel |title=Hazelwood Acquitted of 3 Charges; Guilty on 1 : Oil spill: An Anchorage jury finds the Exxon Valdez skipper culpable only on a minor pollution count. |url=https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1990-03-23-mn-694-story.html |access-date=2 December 2021 |work=Los Angeles Times |date=23 March 1990}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Mathews |first1=Jay |author1-link=Jay Mathews |title=Hazelwood cleared on most counts |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1990/03/23/hazelwood-cleared-on-most-counts/a6cf9a62-8988-495d-a76f-a876f5353f58/ |access-date=2 December 2021 |newspaper=Washington Post |date=23 March 1990}}</ref>

Journalist [[Greg Palast]] stated in 2008:
{{Blockquote|Forget the drunken skipper fable. As to Captain Joe Hazelwood, he was below decks, sleeping off his bender. At the helm, the third mate may never have collided with Bligh Reef had he looked at his RAYCAS radar. But the radar was not turned on. In fact, the tanker's radar was left broken and disabled for more than a year before the disaster, and Exxon management knew it. It was just too expensive to fix and operate.<ref name="AUTOREF5" />}}

Other factors, according to an [[Massachusetts Institute of Technology|MIT]] course entitled "Software System Safety" by Professor Nancy G. Leveson,<ref name="AUTOREF6" /> included:
# Ships were not informed that the previous practice of the Coast Guard tracking ships out to Bligh Reef had ceased.<ref name="Leveson20" />
# The oil industry promised, but never installed, state-of-the-art iceberg monitoring equipment.<ref name="Leveson18" />
# ''Exxon Valdez'' was sailing outside the normal sea lane to avoid small icebergs thought to be in the area.<ref name="Leveson18" />
<!--[[Wikipedia:Copyright violation]] copypaste and too close paraphrasing removed from here, page 18: radar station-->
<!--copypasta removed, page 19: Congressional approval-->
# Coast Guard vessel inspections in Valdez were not performed, and the number of staff was reduced.<ref name="Leveson19" />
# Lack of available equipment and personnel hampered the spill cleanup.<ref name="Leveson20" />
This disaster resulted in [[International Maritime Organization]] introducing comprehensive [[marine pollution]] prevention rules ([[MARPOL]]) through various conventions. The rules were ratified by member countries and, under International Ship Management rules, the ships are being operated with a common objective of "safer ships and cleaner oceans."<ref>{{Cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=MgoCpBaVJlMC&q=%22safer%20ships%20and%20cleaner%20oceans%22%20MARPOL&pg=PT198|title=From T-2 to Supertanker: Development of the Oil Tanker, 1940–2000, Revised|last=Spyrou|first=Andrew G.|year=2017 |publisher=iUniverse|isbn=9781462002344|language=en}}</ref>

In 2009, Captain Hazelwood offered a "heartfelt apology" to the people of Alaska, suggesting he had been wrongly blamed for the disaster: "The true story is out there for anybody who wants to look at the facts, but that's not the sexy story and that's not the easy story," he said. Hazelwood said he felt Alaskans always gave him a fair shake.<ref name=clv>{{cite news|last1=Meyer|first1=Bill|title=Captain of Exxon Valdez offers 'heartfelt apology' for '89 oil spill in Alaska's Prince William Sound |url=http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2009/03/captain_of_exxon_valdez_offers.html |access-date=January 17, 2017|work=[[The Plain Dealer]]|date=March 5, 2009|location=Cleveland, OH}}</ref>

==Clean-up and major effects ==
[[File:OilCleanupAfterValdezSpill.jpg|thumb|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. Scientific data on its toxicity were either thin or incomplete. In addition, public acceptance of 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 might have been available."<ref name=histories /><ref name="autogenerated2">{{cite web |title=The Exxon Valdez Oil Spill: Final Report, State of Alaska Response |url=http://www.evostc.state.ak.us/static/PDFs/deccleanuptechniques.pdf |website=Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council |publisher=Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation |access-date=March 19, 2019 |location=Anchorage, AK |pages=61–87 |date=June 1993 |archive-date=September 28, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210928164320/https://evostc.state.ak.us/static/PDFs/deccleanuptechniques.pdf |url-status=dead }}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.evostc.state.ak.us/index.cfm?FA=facts.QA|title=Oil Spill Facts – Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council|first=''Exxon Valdez'' Oil Spill Trustee|last=Council}}</ref>

According to a report by [[David Kirby (journalist)|David Kirby]] for [[TakePart]], the main component of the [[Corexit]] formulation used during cleanup, [[2-butoxyethanol]], was identified as "one of the agents that caused [[liver]], [[kidney]], [[lung]], [[nervous system]], and blood disorders among cleanup crews in Alaska following the 1989 ''Exxon Valdez'' spill".<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.takepart.com/article/2013/04/17/corexit-deepwater-horizon-oil-spill|title=Corexit: An Oil Spill Solution Worse Than the Problem?|last=Kirby|first=David|date=Apr 22, 2013|website=www.TakePart.com|publisher=Participant Media|access-date=April 19, 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160505211414/http://www.takepart.com/article/2013/04/17/corexit-deepwater-horizon-oil-spill|archive-date=May 5, 2016|url-status=dead}}</ref> It is now known that while [[2-butoxyethanol]] is indeed a respiratory irritant that can be acutely toxic,<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.nlm.nih.gov/toxnet/index.html|title=TOXNET HAS MOVED|website=www.nlm.nih.gov|access-date=2020-01-24}}</ref> animal studies did not find it to be mutagenic, and no studies suggest it to be a human carcinogen.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/phs/phs.asp?id=345&tid=61|title=Public Health Statement for 2-Butoxyethanol and 2-Butoxyethanol Acetate|date=August 1998|website=Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Center for Disease Control|access-date=16 February 2020}}</ref>

Mechanical cleanup was started shortly afterward using [[Boom (containment)|booms]] and [[Oil skimmer|skimmers]], but the skimmers were not readily available during the first 24 hours following the spill, and thick oil and [[kelp]] tended to clog the equipment. Despite civilian insistence for a complete cleanup, only 10% of total oil was actually completely cleaned. Exxon was widely criticized for its slow response to cleaning up the disaster and John Devens, the mayor of [[Valdez, Alaska|Valdez]], said his community felt betrayed by Exxon's inadequate response to the crisis.<ref name="AUTOREF8" /> More than 11,000 Alaska residents, along with some Exxon employees, worked throughout the region to try to restore the environment.

Though the clean-up effort was diligent it failed to contain the majority of the oil that had spilled and that has been blamed heavily upon Exxon. On November 26, 1984, Ronald A. Kreizenbeck (Director, Alaska Operations Office) informed the Coast Guard that the EPA suspected, due to a recent site-visitation during an 'Annual Marine Drill' that the Port of Valdez was not prepared to "efficiently respond to a major spill event". In the letter, he stated that "[it] appears that the Vikoma boom and/or deployment vessels used may not be adequate to handle the harsh environmental conditions of Port Valdez".<ref>{{Cite book|last=Resources|first=United States Congress House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs Subcommittee on Water, Power, and Offshore Energy|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=cq3ckJGGBkYC|title=Investigation of the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill, Prince William Sound, Alaska: Oversight Hearings Before the Subcommittee on Water, Power, and Offshore Energy Resources of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, House of Representatives, One Hundred First Congress, First Session ....|date=1989|publisher=U.S. Government Printing Office|language=en}}</ref>
Because Prince William Sound contained many rocky coves where the oil was 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.g. [[plankton]]) are the basis of the coastal marine food chain, and others (e.g., certain bacteria and fungi) are capable of facilitating the [[biodegradation]] of oil. At the time, both scientific advice and public pressure was to clean everything, but since then, a much greater understanding of [[bioremediation|natural]] and facilitated [[Environmental remediation|remediation]] processes has developed, due somewhat in part to the opportunity presented for study by the ''Exxon Valdez'' spill.

Both long-term and short-term effects of the oil spill have been studied.<ref name="AUTOREF11" /> Immediate effects include the deaths of between 100,000 and 250,000 seabirds, at least 2,800 [[sea otter]]s, approximately 12 [[North American river otter|river otters]], 300 [[Common seal|harbor seals]], 247 [[bald eagle]]s, and 22 [[orca]]s, and an unknown number of salmon and herring.<ref name="Scientific American" /><ref name="AUTOREF12" />

Nine years after the disaster, evidence of negative oil spill effects on marine birds was found in the following species: [[cormorant]]s, [[Goldeneye (duck)|goldeneyes]], [[merganser]]s, [[murre]]s and [[pigeon guillemot]]s.<ref>{{cite book|first1=David B.|last1= Irons|first2=Steven J.|last2=Kendall|first3=Wallace P.|last3=Erickson|first4=Lyman L.|last4=McDonald|first5=Brian K.|last5=Lance|url=https://academic.oup.com/condor/article/102/4/723/5562924?searchresult=1|title=Nine Years After the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill: Effects on Marine Bird Populations in Prince William Sound, Alaska|journal=The Condor|volume =102|oclc=256945515|issue= 4|year= 2000|pages =723–737|issn= 0010-5422|doi=10.1093/condor/102.4.723|publisher=Oxford University Press}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|first1=Stephen M.|last1=Murphy|first2=Robert H.|last2=Day|first3=John A.|last3=Wiens|first4=Keith R.|last4=Parker|title=Effects of the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill on Birds: Comparisons of Pre- and Post-Spill Surveys in Prince William Sound, Alaska|journal=The Condor|volume =99|issue= 2|date=May 1, 1997|pages =299–313|doi=10.2307/1369936|jstor=1369936|oclc=	4907621032|doi-access=free}}</ref>

Although the volume of oil has declined considerably, with oil remaining only about 0.14–0.28% of the original spilled volume, studies suggest that the area of oiled beach has changed little since 1992.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Short |first1=Jeffrey W. |display-authors=et al |title=Estimate of Oil Persisting on the Beaches of Prince William Sound 12 Years after the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill |journal=Environmental Science & Technology |date=2004 |volume=38 |issue=1 |pages=19–22 |doi=10.1021/es0348694 |pmid=14740712 |bibcode=2004EnST...38...19S }}</ref> A study by the National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA in [[Juneau, Alaska|Juneau]], determined that by 2001 approximately 90 tonnes of oil remained on beaches in Prince William Sound in the sandy soil of the contaminated shoreline, with annual loss rates declining from 68% per year prior to 1992, to 4% per year after 2001.<ref>{{cite journal |title=Slightly Weathered ''Exxon Valdez'' Oil Persists in Gulf of Alaska Beach Sediments after 16 Years|last1=Short |first1=Jeffrey W. |s2cid=19133912 |display-authors=et al |journal=[[Environmental Science & Technology]] |date=January 19, 2007 |volume=41 |issue=4 |pages=1245–1250 |publisher=American Chemical Society |issn=0013-936X|doi=10.1021/es0620033 |pmid=17593726 |bibcode=2007EnST...41.1245S }}</ref><ref name=Peterson >{{cite journal |last1=Peterson |first1=Charles H. |last2=Rice |first2=Stanley D. |last3=Short |first3=Jeffrey W. |s2cid=13007077 |display-authors=et al |title=Long-Term Ecosystem Response to the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill |journal=[[Science (journal)|Science]] |date=December 19, 2003 |volume=302 |issue=5653 |pages=2082–2086 |doi=10.1126/science.1084282 |pmid=14684812 |bibcode=2003Sci...302.2082P }}</ref>
[[File:EVOSWEB 013 oiled bird3.jpg|thumb|Wildlife was severely affected by the oil spill.]]

The remaining oil lasting far longer than anticipated has resulted in more long-term losses of species than had been expected. Laboratory experiments found that at levels as low as one part per billion, [[polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons]] are toxic for salmon and herring eggs. Species as diverse as sea otters, harlequin ducks, and orcas suffered immediate and long-term losses. Oiled mussel beds and other tidal shoreline habitats may take up to 30 years to recover.<ref name=Peterson />

[[ExxonMobil]] denied concerns over the remaining oil, stating that they anticipated the remaining fraction would not cause long-term ecological impacts. According to the conclusions of [[ExxonMobil]]'s study: "We've done 350 peer-reviewed studies of Prince William Sound, and those studies conclude that Prince William Sound has recovered, it's healthy and it's thriving."<ref name="still" />

On March 24, 2014, the twenty-fifth anniversary of the spill, [[National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration|NOAA]] scientists reported that some species seem to have recovered, with the sea otter the latest creature to return to pre-spill numbers. 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.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/25-years-later-scientists-remember-exxon-valdez-spill/#the-rundown|title=25 years later, scientists still spot traces of oil from Exxon Valdez spill|website=[[PBS]]|date=2014-03-24}}</ref> Federal scientists estimate that between 16,000 and 21,000 US gallons (61 to 79 m<sup>3</sup>) of oil remains on beaches in Prince William Sound and up to 450 miles (725&nbsp;km) away. 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. "The oil mixes with seawater and forms an emulsion...Left out, the surface crusts over but the inside still has the consistency of mayonnaise – or mousse."<ref name=autogenerated1>{{cite news|url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/10717219/Exxon-Valdez-25-years-after-the-Alaska-oil-spill-the-court-battle-continues.html |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20220112/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/10717219/Exxon-Valdez-25-years-after-the-Alaska-oil-spill-the-court-battle-continues.html |archive-date=January 12, 2022 |url-access=subscription |url-status=live|title=Exxon Valdez – 25 years after the Alaska oil spill, the court battle continues|date=2014-03-23|last1=Walters|first1=Joanna}}{{cbignore}}</ref> Alaska state senator Berta Gardner is urging Alaskan politicians to demand that the US government force ExxonMobil to pay the final $92&nbsp;million (£57&nbsp;million) still owed from the court settlement. The major part of the money would be spent to finish cleaning up oiled beaches and attempting to restore the crippled herring population.<ref name=autogenerated1 />

As of 2012, the indirect and long-term sublethal effects of oil on shorebirds had been measured in relatively few studies.<ref name="oclc_7791645445">{{cite journal|first1=Jessica R.|last1=Henkel|first2= Bryan J.|last2=Sigel|first3=Caz M.|last3=Taylor |title=Large-Scale Impacts of the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill: Can Local Disturbance Affect Distant Ecosystems through Migratory Shorebirds?|journal=BioScience|volume= 62|issue= 7|date=July 1, 2012|pages= 676–685|doi=10.1525/bio.2012.62.7.10|oclc=7791645445|issn=0006-3568|jstor=10.1525/bio.2012.62.7.10|s2cid=8059072|doi-access=free}}</ref>

==Litigation and cleanup costs==
[[File:RaptorEducationGroupIncEagles.jpg|thumb|Bald eagles rescued from the oil spill|230x230px]]

In October 1989, Exxon filed a suit against the State of [[Alaska]], claiming that the state had interfered with Exxon's attempts to clean up the spill by refusing to approve the use of dispersant chemicals until the night of the 26th. The State of Alaska disputed this 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 ''Exxon Valdez''.<ref name=exxonvalaska>{{cite news|title=Exxon Sues Alaska, Charging Cleanup Delay|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1989/10/25/us/exxon-sues-alaska-charging-cleanup-delay.html|newspaper=New York Times|date=October 25, 1989|access-date=October 15, 2016}}</ref>

Exxon filed claims in October 1990 against the Coast Guard, asking to be reimbursed for cleanup costs and damages awarded to plaintiffs in any lawsuits filed by the State of Alaska or the federal government against Exxon. 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 ''Exxon 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.<ref name="exxonvalaska2">{{cite news|title=Exxon, Blaming Coast Guard, Says U.S. Is Liable in Alaska Spill|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1990/10/02/us/exxon-blaming-coast-guard-says-us-is-liable-in-alaska-spill.html|newspaper=New York Times|date=October 2, 1990|access-date=October 15, 2016}}</ref>

Also, in 1991, Exxon made a quiet, separate financial settlement of damages with a group of seafood producers known as the [[Seattle Seven]] for the disaster's effect on the Alaskan seafood industry. The agreement granted $63.75&nbsp;million to the Seattle Seven, but stipulated that the seafood companies would have to repay almost all of any punitive damages awarded in other civil proceedings. The $5&nbsp;billion in punitive damages was awarded later, and the Seattle Seven's share could have been as high as $750&nbsp;million if the damages award had held. Other plaintiffs have objected to this secret arrangement,<ref name="AUTOREF16" /> 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.<ref name="9th" />

In the case of ''[[Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker|Exxon v. Baker]]'', an [[Anchorage, Alaska|Anchorage]] jury awarded $287&nbsp;million for [[actual damages]] and $5&nbsp;billion for [[punitive damages]]. To protect itself in case the judgment was affirmed, Exxon obtained a $4.8&nbsp;billion credit line from [[JPMorgan Chase|J.P. Morgan & Co.]], who created the first modern [[credit default swap]] so that they would not have to hold as much money in reserve against the risk of Exxon's default.<ref name="AUTOREF13" />

Meanwhile, Exxon appealed the ruling, and the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit|9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals]] ordered the trial judge, [[H. Russel Holland|Russel Holland]], to reduce the punitive damages. On December 6, 2002, Holland announced that he had reduced the damages to $4&nbsp;billion, which he concluded was justified by the facts of the case and was not grossly excessive. Exxon appealed again and the case returned to Holland to be reconsidered in light of a recent [[Supreme Court of the United States|Supreme Court]] ruling in a similar case. Holland increased the punitive damages to $4.5&nbsp;billion, plus interest.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/29/us/4.5-billion-award-set-for-spill-of-exxon-valdez.html|title=$4.5 Billion Award Set For Spill of Exxon Valdez|last=Liptak|first=Adam|date=29 January 2004|website=The New York Times|access-date=3 December 2019}}</ref>

After more appeals, in December 2006 the damages award was cut to $2.5&nbsp;billion. The court of appeals cited recent Supreme Court rulings relative to limits on punitive damages.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/F3/490/490.F3d.1066.04-35183.04-35182.html|title=490 F.3d 1066|website=law.resource.org|access-date=May 28, 2016}}</ref>

Exxon appealed again. On May 23, 2007, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals denied ExxonMobil's request for a third hearing and let stand its ruling that Exxon owed $2.5&nbsp;billion in punitive damages. Exxon then appealed to the Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case.<ref name="cert" /> On February 27, 2008, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments. [[Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States|Justice]] [[Samuel Alito]], who at the time owned between $100,000 and $250,000 in Exxon stock, recused himself from the case.<ref name="scotus" /> In a decision issued June 25, 2008, written by Justice [[David Souter]], the court vacated the $2.5&nbsp;billion award and remanded the case back to the lower court, finding that the damages were excessive with respect to [[Admiralty law|maritime common law]]. Exxon's actions were deemed "worse than negligent but less than malicious."<ref name="latimes 080626" /> The punitive damages were further reduced to an amount of $507.5&nbsp;million.<ref name="scotusopinion" /> The Court's ruling was that maritime punitive damages should not exceed the compensatory damages,<ref name="scotusopinion" /> supported by a precedent dating from 1818.{{citation needed|date=January 2022}} [[Senate Judiciary Committee]] Chairman [[Patrick J. Leahy]] has decried the ruling as "another in a line of cases where this Supreme Court has misconstrued congressional intent to benefit large corporations."<ref name="AUTOREF14" />

Exxon's official position was that punitive damages greater than $25&nbsp;million were not justified because the spill resulted from an accident, and because Exxon spent an estimated $2&nbsp;billion cleaning up the spill and a further $1&nbsp;billion to settle related civil and criminal charges. 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."<ref name="AUTOREF15" /> Exxon recovered a significant portion of clean-up and legal expenses through insurance claims associated with the grounding of ''Exxon Valdez''.<ref name="hfw" /><ref name="10K" />

As of December 15, 2009, Exxon had paid the entire $507.5&nbsp;million in punitive damages, including lawsuit costs, plus interest, which were further distributed to thousands of plaintiffs.<ref name=EQSFnews>{{cite web|title=News and Information|url=http://www.exspill.com/News/tabid/1901/Default.aspx|publisher=Exxon Qualified Settlement Fund|access-date=March 21, 2013|quote=December 15, 2009 [...] Exxon has now paid to the EQSF all monies owed in the EVOS litigation pursuant to the punitive damages judgment|archive-date=August 26, 2013|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130826073822/http://exspill.com/News/tabid/1901/Default.aspx|url-status=dead}}</ref> This amount was one-tenth of the original punitive damages, Exxon remained hugely profitable, the process of payment was drawn out over decades, and long term damage continues and is not funded by Exxon. Hence, the Exxon spill is often cited as shorthand for corporate responsibility for societal damage not being enforced adequately.<ref>{{cite web | url=https://archive.thinkprogress.org/25-years-after-exxon-valdez-oil-spill-company-still-hasnt-paid-for-long-term-environmental-damages-b5a325b28ee1/ | title=25 Years After Exxon Valdez Oil Spill, Company Still Hasn't Paid for Long-Term Environmental Damages | date=July 15, 2013 }}</ref>

==Political consequences and reforms==
===Coast Guard report===
A 1989 report by the Coast Guard's [[Missions of the United States Coast Guard#National Response Center|U.S. National Response Center]] summarized the event and made many recommendations, including that neither Exxon, [[Alyeska Pipeline Service Company]], the State of Alaska, nor the federal government were prepared for a spill of this magnitude.<ref>{{cite book |last1=The National Response Team |title=The Exxon Valdez Oil Spill May 1989 – A Report to the President |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=1i-6NdG0YiwC&pg=PP1 |website=National Service Center for Environmental Publications |year=1989 |publisher=Department of Transportation, Environmental Protection Agency |access-date=6 April 2021}}</ref><ref name="corps">{{cite book |last1=McDonnell |first1=Janet A. |title=The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers response to the Exxon Valdez oil spill |date=1992 |publisher=United States Army Corps of Engineers |location=Fort Belvoir, Virginia |isbn=978-1410222534 |url=https://www.publications.usace.army.mil/Portals/76/Publications/EngineerPamphlets/EP_870-1-41.pdf |access-date=6 April 2021}}</ref>

===Oil Pollution Act of 1990===
In response to the spill, the [[Congress of the United States|United States Congress]] passed the [[Oil Pollution Act of 1990]] (OPA). The legislation included a clause that prohibits any vessel that, after March 22, 1989, has caused an oil spill of more than {{convert|1|e6USgal|m3}} in any marine area, from operating in Prince William Sound.<ref name="opa" />

In April 1998, the company argued in a legal action against the federal government that the ship should be allowed back into Alaskan waters. Exxon claimed OPA was effectively a [[bill of attainder]], a regulation that was unfairly directed at Exxon alone.<ref name="attainder" /> In 2002, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against Exxon. As of 2002, OPA had prevented 18 ships from entering Prince William Sound.<ref name="nyt" />

OPA also set a schedule for the gradual phase-in of a [[double hull]] design, providing an additional layer between the oil tanks and the ocean. While a double hull would likely not have prevented the ''Exxon Valdez'' disaster, a Coast Guard study estimated that it would have cut the amount of oil spilled by 60 percent.<ref name="AUTOREF17" />

''[[Exxon Valdez]]'' was towed to San Diego, arriving on July 10. Repairs began on July 30. Approximately {{convert|1600|ST|t|lk=on}} of steel were removed and replaced. In June 1990, the tanker, renamed ''Exxon Mediterranean'', left the harbor after $30&nbsp;million of repairs.<ref name="nyt" /> In 1993, owned by SeaRiver Maritime, it was named ''S/R Mediterranean'', then in 2005 ''Mediterranean''. In 2008 the vessel was acquired by a Hong Kong company that operated her as ''Dong Fang Ocean'', then in 2011 renamed her ''Oriental Nicety''. In August 2012, she was beached at [[Alang Ship Breaking Yard|Alang]], and dismantled.

===Alaska regulations===
In the aftermath of the spill, Alaska governor [[Steve Cowper]] issued an executive order requiring two [[tugboat]]s to escort every loaded tanker from Valdez out through Prince William Sound to Hinchinbrook Entrance. As the plan evolved in the 1990s, one of the two routine tugboats was replaced with a {{convert|210|ft|adj=on}} Escort Response Vehicle (ERV). Tankers at Valdez are no longer single-hulled. Congress enacted legislation requiring all tankers to be [[double hull|double-hulled]] as of 2015.<ref>{{cite book|last1=Fargo Balliett|first1=James|title=Oceans: Environmental Issues, Global Perspectives|date=2014|publisher=Routledge|isbn=9781317463665|page=51}}</ref>

==Economic and Native impact==
In 1991, following the collapse of populations of local marine species (particularly clams, herring, and seals), the [[Chugach Alaska Corporation]], an [[Alaska Native Regional Corporations|Alaska Native Corporation]], filed for [[Chapter 11, Title 11, United States Code|Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection]]. It has since recovered.<ref name="AUTOREF19" />

According to several studies funded by the state of Alaska, the spill had both short-term and long-term economic effects. These included the loss of [[recreational sport]]s, fisheries, reduced tourism, and an estimate of what economists call "[[existence value]]", which is the value to the public of a pristine Prince William Sound.<ref>1994, Victor Goldberg, The Journal of Legal Studies, Recovery for Economic Loss Following the Exxon ‘Valdez’ Oil Spill"</ref><ref name="fisheries" /><ref name="tourism" /><ref name="AUTOREF20" />

The economy of the city of [[Cordova, Alaska|Cordova]], Alaska was adversely affected after the spill damaged stocks of [[salmon]] and [[herring]] in the area.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.npr.org/2014/03/24/292411071/25-years-after-spill-alaska-town-struggles-back-from-dead-zone|title=25 Years After Spill, Alaska Town Struggles Back From 'Dead Zone'|website=NPR.org |access-date=January 21, 2017}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2014/03/24/exxon-spill-anniversary|title=Native Alaskans Still Reeling 25 Years After Exxon-Valdez Oil Spill|website=www.wbur.org|date=March 24, 2014 |language=en|access-date=January 21, 2017}}</ref> The village of [[Chenega, Alaska|Chenega]] was transformed into an emergency base and media outlet. The local villagers had to cope with a tripling of their population from 80 to 250. When asked how they felt about the situation, a village councilor 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.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Daley|first1=Patrick|last2=O'Neill|first2=Dan|date=December 1, 1991|title="Sad Is Too Mild a Word": Press Coverage of the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill|url=http://academic.oup.com/joc/article/41/4/42/4210081|journal=Journal of Communication|language=en|volume=41|issue=4|pages=42–57|doi=10.1111/j.1460-2466.1991.tb02330.x|issn=0021-9916}}</ref> Many Alaska Natives were worried that too much time was spent on the fishery and not enough on the land that supports subsistence hunting.

In 2010, [[CNN]] reported on studies concluding that many oil spill cleanup workers involved in the ''Exxon Valdez'' response had subsequently become sick, and warned those exposed to the [[Deepwater Horizon oil spill]] to take heed. Anchorage lawyer Dennis Mestas found that this was true for 6,722 of 11,000 worker files he was able to inspect, despite access to the records being controlled by Exxon. Exxon denied this in a statement to [[CNN]]:
{{Blockquote|After 20 years, there is no evidence suggesting that either cleanup workers or the residents of the communities affected by the Valdez spill have had any adverse health effects as a result of the spill or its cleanup.<ref>{{cite web|title = Critics call Valdez cleanup a warning for Gulf workers|url = http://edition.cnn.com/2010/US/07/07/oil.spill.valdez.workers/|publisher=CNN |access-date=December 10, 2015}}</ref>}}
Environmental activists and State officials became concerned that [[BP]] would use similar techniques to minimize liability and de-emphasize health impacts: {{Blockquote| the symptoms being reported in the Gulf states are the same ones that hit workers in Alaska. And just like then, people with their backs against the wall financially are flocking to the take jobs with the cleanup... I'm feeling like BP is forcing them into this situation where BP holds all the cards, and BP is letting these workers get sick}}

==Reactions==
In 1992, Exxon released a video titled ''Scientists and the Alaska Oil Spill'' for distribution to schools. Critics said the video misrepresented the clean-up process.<ref name="AUTOREF10" />

In December 1994, the [[Unabomber]] assassinated [[Burson-Marsteller]] executive [[Thomas Mosser (Unabomber victim)|Thomas J. Mosser]], accusing him of having "helped Exxon clean up its public image after the ''Exxon Valdez'' incident".<ref>{{cite news |title=Reputed 'Manifesto' Recovered |first1=Pierre |last1=Thomas |first2=Benjamin |last2=Weiser|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/unabomber/bkgrdstories.manifesto.htm |newspaper=The Washington Post |date=April 13, 1996 |page=A01  |access-date=January 28, 2011}}</ref>

=== In popular culture ===
Several weeks after the spill, ''[[Saturday Night Live]]'' aired a pointed sketch featuring [[Kevin Nealon]], [[Phil Hartman]], and [[Victoria Jackson]] as cleanup workers struggling to scrub the oil off of animals and rocks on a beach in Prince William Sound.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Nealon |first1=Kevin |title=Joseph Hazelwood Sketches |url=http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/cast/kevin-nealon-15096/impersonation/joseph-hazelwood-193926 |access-date=5 June 2019 |work=Saturday Night Live |date=15 April 1989}}</ref>

In the ''[[Rocko's Modern Life]]'' episode, "Rocko's Happy Sack", [[Rocko]] and his dog, [[Spunky (Rocko's Modern Life)|Spunky]] are grocery shopping when the announcer informs everyone of a "spill in the seafood section", represented by a giant oil tanker labeled "Noxxon Valdez".

In the 1995 film ''[[Waterworld]]'', ''Exxon Valdez'' is the flagship of the movie's villain, "The Deacon," the leader of a band of scavenging raiders. In the ship is a portrait of their patron saint, [[Joseph Hazelwood]].<ref>{{cite magazine |last1=Wells |first1=Jeffrey |title=Joseph Hazelwood memorialized in ''Waterworld'' |url=https://ew.com/article/1995/08/25/joseph-hazelwood-memorialized-waterworld/ |access-date=5 June 2019 |magazine=Entertainment Weekly |date=25 August 1995}}</ref>

''[[Free Willy 2: The Adventure Home]]'', sequel to ''[[Free Willy]]'', contained an oil spill plotline that echoes the ''Exxon Valdez'' oil spill.

In the second [[Forrest Gump (character)|Forrest Gump]] novel, ''[[Gump and Co.]]'' by [[Winston Groom]], Gump commandeers ''Exxon Valdez'' and accidentally crashes it.<ref>{{cite news|last1=Hiaasen|first1=Rob|title=Remaking history with Gump sequel|url=https://www.baltimoresun.com/1995/08/12/remaking-history-with-gump-sequel/|access-date=March 31, 2018|work=[[The Baltimore Sun]]|date=August 12, 1995}}</ref>

Composer [[Jonathan Larson]] wrote a song called "Iron Mike" about the oil spill. The song is written in the style of a [[sea shanty]]. It was first professionally recorded by [[George Salazar]] for the album ''The Jonathan Larson Project''.<ref>{{cite news|last1=Gordon|first1=David|title=Hear George Salazar Sing "Iron Mike" From Jonathan Larson Project Album|url=https://www.theatermania.com/new-york-city-theater/news/exclusive-hear-george-salazar-sing-iron-mike_88311.html|access-date=April 6, 2019|work=Theater Mania|date=April 4, 2019}}</ref>

The 1992 made-for-television film ''[[Dead Ahead: The Exxon Valdez Disaster]]'', produced by [[HBO]], dramatized the oil spill disaster.

In season 2, episode 8, of ''[[Breaking Bad]]'', entitled "[[Better Call Saul (Breaking Bad)|Better Call Saul]]", [[Walter White (Breaking Bad)|Walter White]] tells [[Jesse Pinkman]] that Jesse's friend Badger, who had been caught in a drug deal with their methamphetamine and placed under arrest, is going to spill [information] like the ''Exxon Valdez''.<ref>{{Citation|title=Breaking Bad - Saul Meets Walter|url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lqMq6jLUcg8|language=en|access-date=2022-02-22}}</ref>

==See also==
* [[List of oil spills]]
* [[Deepwater Horizon oil spill|''Deepwater Horizon'' oil spill]]
* [[Ixtoc I oil spill]]
* ''[[Dead Ahead: The Exxon Valdez Disaster]],'' 1992 [[HBO]] movie
*[[Martin County coal slurry spill]]
*[[Kingston Fossil Plant coal fly ash slurry spill]]

==References==
{{Reflist|refs=

<!-- Not in use
<ref name="AUTOREF">{{cite web|url=http://www.evostc.state.ak.us/history/faq.cfm |title=Frequently Asked Questions About the Spill |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070630224835/http://www.evostc.state.ak.us/History/FAQ.cfm |archive-date=June 30, 2007 |access-date=October 11, 2010 |publisher=Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council |url-status=dead }}</ref>
Not in use-->

<ref name="histories">{{Cite journal | author=Hazardous Materials Response and Assessment Division | title=Oil Spill Case Histories 1967–1991, Report No. HMRAD 92-11| publisher=National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | date=September 1992| location=Seattle | page =80| url=http://response.restoration.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/Oil_Spill_Case_Histories.pdf| access-date=March 10, 2008}}</ref>

<ref name="faq">{{cite web |title = Questions and Answers about the Spill |url = http://www.evostc.state.ak.us/facts/qanda.cfm |work = History of the Spill |publisher = Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council |access-date = May 26, 2009 |archive-date = February 24, 2012 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20120224051448/http://www.evostc.state.ak.us/facts/qanda.cfm |url-status = dead }}</ref>

<ref name="SpillAroundUs">{{Cite news | author=Brandon Keim | title=The ''Exxon Valdez'' Spill Is All Around Us | url=https://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/03/valdezlegacy/ | work=Wired Science | date=March 24, 2009 | access-date=June 29, 2010}}</ref>

<!--ref name="AUTOREF1">[http://iml.jou.ufl.edu/projects/Fall02/Susi/exxon.htm Effective Crisis Management, ''The Exxon Crisis'', 1989], 2002, [http://iml.jou.ufl.edu/  University of Florida Interactive Media Lab], Retrieved July 21, 2010</ref-->

<ref name="greenpeace">{{cite web|title=Exxon Valdez disaster – 15 years of lies |work=Greenpeace News |publisher=Greenpeace |date=March 24, 2004 |url=http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/exxon-valdez-disaster-15-year |access-date=March 10, 2008 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080215132419/http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/exxon-valdez-disaster-15-year |archive-date=February 15, 2008}}</ref>

<ref name="AUTOREF2">{{Cite press release |title=16 Years After ''Exxon Valdez'' Tragedy, Arctic Refuge, America's Coasts Still at Risk |publisher=Sierra Club |date=March 23, 2005 |url=http://www.sierraclub.org/pressroom/releases/pr2005-03-23a.asp |access-date=March 10, 2008 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080305002941/http://www.sierraclub.org/pressroom/releases/pr2005-03-23a.asp |archive-date=March 5, 2008}}</ref>

<ref name="AUTOREF4">{{cite web|url=http://www.gregpalast.com/ten-years-after-but-who-was-to-blame/ |title=Ten years after but who was to blame? |publisher=Greg Palast |date=March 21, 1999 |access-date=July 21, 2010}}</ref>

<ref name="AUTOREF5">{{cite web|url=http://www.gregpalast.com/court-rewards-exxon-for-valdez-oil-spill/|title=Court Rewards Exxon for Valdez Oil Spill – Greg Palast|first=Greg|last=Palast|date=June 25, 2008}}</ref>

<ref name="AUTOREF6">{{cite web|url=http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/aeronautics-and-astronautics/16-358j-system-safety-spring-2005/lecture-notes/ |first=Nancy G. | last = Leveson |title=Software System Safety |publisher= [[Massachusetts Institute of Technology]] |date=July 2005 |pages=18–20 |ref=Leveson|access-date=July 30, 2010 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20101108055426/http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/aeronautics-and-astronautics/16-358j-system-safety-spring-2005/lecture-notes/class_notes.pdf |archive-date = November 8, 2010 |url-status = dead}}</ref>

<ref name="Leveson18">[[#Leveson|Leveson, p.18]]</ref>

<ref name="Leveson19">[[#Leveson|Leveson, p.19]]</ref>

<ref name="Leveson20">[[#Leveson|Leveson, p.20]]</ref>

<ref name="AUTOREF8">{{cite web|last=Baker |first=Mallen |title=Companies in Crisis – What not to do when it all goes wrong |work=Corporate Social Responsibility News |url=http://www.mallenbaker.net/csr/CSRfiles/crisis03.html |access-date=March 9, 2008 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080222014022/http://www.mallenbaker.net/csr/CSRfiles/crisis03.html |archive-date=February 22, 2008}}</ref>

<ref name="AUTOREF10">{{cite web |url=http://www.textbookleague.org/36exx.htm |author=D. Michael Fry |title=How Exxon's "Video for Students" Deals in Distortions |publisher=The Textbook Letter |date=November 19, 1992 |access-date=July 21, 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141210143705/http://www.textbookleague.org/36exx.htm |archive-date=December 10, 2014 |url-status=dead }}</ref>

<ref name="AUTOREF11">{{Cite conference |author1=SC Jewett |author2=TA Dean |author3=M Hoberg |title=Scuba Techniques Used to Assess the Effects of the ''Exxon Valdez'' Oil Spill |editor=SC Jewett |book-title=Cold Water Diving for Science |conference=Proceedings of the American Academy of Underwater Sciences, 21st Annual Scientific Diving Symposium |year=2001 |url=http://archive.rubicon-foundation.org/4720 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081221215426/http://archive.rubicon-foundation.org/4720 |url-status=usurped |archive-date=December 21, 2008 |access-date=June 27, 2008}}</ref>

<ref name="AUTOREF12">{{Cite news | title = ''Exxon Valdez'': Ten years on | date = March 18, 1999 | url = http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/298608.stm |work=BBC News | access-date =May 24, 2010}}</ref>

<ref name="still">{{Cite news | title =Exxon Valdez oil spill still a threat: study|publisher=Australian Broadcasting Corporation| date =May 17, 2006| url =http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2006/05/17/1640469.htm| access-date=March 9, 2008}}</ref>

<ref name="Scientific American">{{Cite news|last=Graham |first=Sarah |url=http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa003&articleID=0001A1FF-12D7-1FE2-92D783414B7F0000 |title=Environmental Effects of ''Exxon Valdez'' Spill Still Being Felt |date=December 19, 2003 |work=[[Scientific American]] |access-date=March 9, 2008 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060329000624/http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa003&articleID=0001A1FF-12D7-1FE2-92D783414B7F0000 |archive-date=March 29, 2006}} [https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/environmental-effects-of/#:~:text=On%20March%2024%2C%201989%2C%20the,days%20immediately%20following%20the%20spill. Alt URL]</ref>

<ref name="AUTOREF13">{{cite magazine|last=Lanchester |first=John |url=http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2009/06/01/090601crbo_books_lanchester |title=Books: Outsmarted |magazine=The New Yorker |date=January 7, 2009 |access-date=July 21, 2010}}</ref>

<ref name="cert">{{Cite news | author =Staff writer| title = Supreme Court to review ''Exxon Valdez'' award|publisher=CNN | date =October 29, 2007| url =https://money.cnn.com/2007/10/29/news/exxon_valdez/index.htm| access-date =March 10, 2008}}</ref>

<ref name="scotus">{{Cite news|author=Staff writer |title=High Court may lower ''Exxon Valdez'' damages |publisher=CNN |agency=Associated Press |date=February 27, 2008 |url=https://money.cnn.com/2008/02/27/news/companies/exxon_valdez.ap/index.htm |access-date=March 10, 2008 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080303100959/https://money.cnn.com/2008/02/27/news/companies/exxon_valdez.ap/index.htm |archive-date=March 3, 2008}}</ref>

<ref name="latimes 080626">{{Cite news | author =Savage, David G.| title =Justices slash ''Exxon Valdez'' verdict| work =[[Los Angeles Times|articles.latimes.com]]| publisher =[[Tribune Company]]| date=June 26, 2008| url =https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2008-jun-26-na-valdez26-story.html| access-date =June 26, 2008}}</ref>

<ref name="scotusopinion">{{Cite court | litigants =Exxon v. Baker | court=[[Supreme Court of the United States]]| vol=554| reporter=U.S.| opinion= | date=June 25, 2008| url =https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-219.pdf}}</ref>

<ref name="AUTOREF14">{{cite web|url=http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200806/062508d.html |title=Reaction of Sen. Leahy on Supreme Court Ruling in Exxon v. Baker |publisher=Leahy.senate.gov |date=June 25, 2008 |access-date=February 25, 2009 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090131001604/http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200806/062508d.html |archive-date=January 31, 2009}}</ref>

<ref name="AUTOREF15">{{Cite news |last=Egelko |first =Bob| title =Punitive damages appealed in Valdez spill|work=San Francisco Chronicle |date=January 28, 2006| url =http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/01/28/BAGHUGUQCA1.DTL| access-date=March 10, 2008}}</ref>

<ref name="hfw">{{cite web|last=Bandurka |first=Andrew |author2=Sloane, Simon |title=Exxon Valdez – D. G. Syndicate 745 vs. Brandywine Reinsurance Company (UK) – Summary of the Court of Appeal Judgment |publisher=[[Holman Fenwick & Willan]] |date=March 10, 2005 |url=http://www.hfw.com/l3/new/newl3a100305.html |access-date=March 10, 2008 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080304032707/http://www.hfw.com/l3/new/newl3a100305.html |archive-date=March 4, 2008}}</ref>

<ref name="10K">{{cite web| title =Exxon Corporation 1993 Form 10-K| work =[[EDGAR]]| publisher =[[U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission]]| date =March 11, 1994| url =http://yahoo.brand.edgar-online.com/fetchFilingFrameset.aspx?FilingID=512563&Type=HTML| access-date =March 10, 2008 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20080304025742/http://yahoo.brand.edgar-online.com/fetchFilingFrameset.aspx?FilingID=512563&Type=HTML <!-- Bot retrieved archive --> |archive-date = March 4, 2008}}</ref>

<ref name="AUTOREF16">{{Cite news | last =Erb| first =George| title =Exxon Valdez case still twisting through courts| work =[[Puget Sound Business Journal]]| date =November 3, 2000| url =http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/stories/2000/11/06/newscolumn3.html?t=printable| access-date =March 10, 2008}}</ref>

<ref name="9th">[http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/coa/newopinions.nsf/0333BD942E7EA5AA8825724C0059D92E/$file/0435182.pdf?openelement ''Exxon v. Baker''], CV-89-00095-HRH (9th Cir. 2006).</ref>

<ref name="opa">{{cite web| title =Oil Pollution Act of 1990 – Summary| work =Federal Wildlife and Related Laws Handbook| date =August 18, 1990| url =http://ipl.unm.edu/cwl/fedbook/oilpollu.html| access-date =March 10, 2008| archive-url =https://web.archive.org/web/20071118130618/http://ipl.unm.edu/cwl/fedbook/oilpollu.html| archive-date =November 18, 2007| url-status =dead}}</ref>

<ref name="attainder">{{Cite journal|last=Carrigan |first=Alison |title=The bill of attainder clause: a new weapon to challenge the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 |journal=Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review |issue=Fall 2000 |url=http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/law/lwsch/journals/bcealr/28_1/04_FMS.htm |access-date=March 10, 2008 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20050429003818/http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/law/lwsch/journals/bcealr/28_1/04_FMS.htm |archive-date=April 29, 2005}}</ref>

<ref name="nyt">{{Cite news | title =Exxon Valdez Is Barred From Alaska Sound|work=The New York Times | date =November 2, 2002| url =https://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9904EEDC163EF931A35752C1A9649C8B63| access-date=March 10, 2008}}</ref>

<ref name="AUTOREF17">{{Cite news |last=Kizzia |first=Tom |title=Double-hull tankers face slow going |work=[[Anchorage Daily News]] |date=May 13, 1999 |url=http://www.adn.com/evos/stories/T99032456.html |access-date=March 10, 2008 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080203215034/http://www.adn.com/evos/stories/T99032456.html |archive-date=February 3, 2008}}</ref>

<ref name="AUTOREF19">{{Cite news |last=Loshbaugh |first =Doug| title =School of Hard Knocks| work =[[Juneau Empire]]| year =2000| url=http://www.juneaualaska.com/between/chugach.shtml| access-date =May 18, 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070927134153/http://www.juneaualaska.com/between/chugach.shtml |archive-date=September 27, 2007}}</ref>

<ref name="fisheries">{{cite web| last =Carson| first =Richard| author2 =Hanemann, W. Michael| title =A Preliminary Economic Analysis of Recreational Fishing Losses Related to the ''Exxon Valdez'' Oil Spill| publisher =Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council| date =December 18, 1992| url =http://www.evostc.state.ak.us/Universal/Documents/Publications/Economic/Econ_Fishing.pdf| access-date =March 10, 2008| archive-date =September 28, 2021| archive-url =https://web.archive.org/web/20210928155309/https://evostc.state.ak.us/Universal/Documents/Publications/Economic/Econ_Fishing.pdf| url-status =dead}}</ref>

<ref name="tourism">{{cite web| title =An Assessment of the Impact of the ''Exxon Valdez'' Oil Spill on the Alaska Tourism Industry| publisher =Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council| date =August 1990| url =http://www.evostc.state.ak.us/Universal/Documents/Publications/Economic/Econ_Tourism.pdf| access-date =March 10, 2008| archive-date =September 28, 2021| archive-url =https://web.archive.org/web/20210928155217/https://evostc.state.ak.us/Universal/Documents/Publications/Economic/Econ_Tourism.pdf| url-status =dead}}</ref>

<ref name="AUTOREF20">{{cite web|title=Economic Impacts of Spilled Oil |work=Publications |publisher=Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council |url=http://www.evostc.state.ak.us/Publications/economic.cfm |access-date=March 10, 2008 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070630045759/http://www.evostc.state.ak.us/Publications/economic.cfm |archive-date=June 30, 2007}}</ref>
|colwidth=30em}}

==Further reading==
*{{cite magazine|title=Tragedy in Alaska Waters|first=Douglas B.|last=Lee|magazine=[[National Geographic (magazine)|National Geographic]]|pages=260–263|volume=176|issue=2|date=August 1989|issn=0027-9358|oclc=643483454}}

==External links==
{{commons category|Exxon Valdez (ship, 1986)}}
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20100611194527/https://www.ntsb.gov/Recs/letters/1990/M90_26_31A.pdf NTSB safety recommendation to address crew management deficiencies at Exxon and in industry]
* [http://www.evostc.state.ak.us/ ''Exxon Valdez'' Oil Spill Trustee Council] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150422100518/http://evostc.state.ak.us/ |date=April 22, 2015 }}
* [http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/about_issues_valdez.aspx ExxonMobil updates and news on ''Valdez'']
<!--
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20050907222152/http://response.restoration.noaa.gov/photos/exxon/exxon.html Images from the ''Exxon Valdez'' oil spill] from the [[National Ocean Service]] [[Office of Response and Restoration]]
* [http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/oil/ EVOS Damage Assessment and Restoration] at [[National Marine Fisheries Service]]
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20060928151948/http://www.epa.gov/oilspill/exxon.htm Oil Spill Profiles: ''Exxon Valdez''] at [[United States Environmental Protection Agency]]
* [http://www.nrt.org/ US National Response Team]
* [https://editors.eol.org/eoearth/wiki/Exxon_Valdez_oil_spill ''Exxon Valdez'' oil spill] at [[Encyclopedia of Earth]]
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20120627115942/http://www.cglaw.com/viewdoc137.html The story behind the oil spill verdict] – originally published in ''[[San Diego Union-Tribune]]''
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20071127010855/http://www.akrrt.org/Archives/Response_Reports/ExxonValdez_NRT_1989.pdf Alaskan Regional Response Team report on the ''Exxon Valdez'' disaster]
* [http://www.democracynow.org/2010/5/26/bp_played_central_role_in_botched BP Played Central Role in Botched Containment of 1989 ''Exxon Valdez'' Disaster] – video report by ''[[Democracy Now!]]''
* {{Internet Archive short film|id=org.c-span.12027-1|name=Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Assessment (April 24, 1990)}}
* {{Internet Archive short film|id=org.c-span.11637-1|name=Exxon Valdez: One Year Later (March 22, 1990)}}
* [https://www.flickr.com/photos/arlis-reference Photos related to the oil spill] from the Alaska Resources Library and Information Services (ARLIS)
* [http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/25_years_after_exxon_valdez_the_hidden_culprit_was_bp_20140323 "25 Years After ''Exxon Valdez'', BP Was the Hidden Culprit"] at ''[[Truthdig]]'' (March 23, 2014) -->
{{Alaska history footer}}
{{ExxonMobil}}
{{1989 shipwrecks}}

{{Authority control}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Exxon Valdez Oil Spill}}
[[Category:Exxon Valdez oil spill| ]]
[[Category:1989 controversies in the United States]]
[[Category:1989 disasters in the United States]]
[[Category:1989 in Alaska]]
[[Category:1989 in the environment]]
[[Category:1989 industrial disasters]]
[[Category:Chugach Census Area, Alaska]]
[[Category:Disasters in Alaska]]
[[Category:Environment of Alaska]]
[[Category:ExxonMobil oil spills|Valdez Oil Spill]]
[[Category:March 1989 events in the United States]]
[[Category:Maritime incidents in 1989]]
[[Category:Maritime incidents in the United States]]
[[Category:Oil spills in the United States]]
[[Category:Presidency of George H. W. Bush]]
[[Category:Transportation disasters in Alaska]]
[[Category:Trans-Alaska Pipeline System]]
[[Category:Petroleum in Alaska]]
[[Category:Environmental racism in the United States]]