Oil Spill Facts - Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council Questions and Answers about the Spill Where is the Exxon Valdez today? After several changes of name and ownership, the tanker was converted for hauling bulk ore in the South China Sea. Following a collision with a cargo ship in November 2012, the ore carrier was sold, again renamed, and then resold for scrap and routed to India. A court dispute to prevent the ship from being beached in India was resolved when the Supreme Court of India granted permission to the owners to beach the ship for dismantling. The former T/V Exxon Valdez was beached on August 2, 2012. For more details, see After the Big Spill, What Happened to the Ship Exxon Valdez? at the NOAA website . How did the accident happen?

The National Transportation Safety Board investigated the accident and determined that the probable causes of the grounding were: The failure of the third mate to properly maneuver the vessel, possibly due to fatigue and excessive workload; the failure of the master to provide a proper navigation watch, possibly due to impairment from alcohol; the failure of Exxon Shipping Company to supervise the master and provide a rested and sufficient crew for the Exxon Valdez; the failure of the U.S. Coast Guard to provide an effective vessel traffic system; and the lack of effective pilot and escort services. Okay. But what actually happened? The Exxon Valdez departed from the Trans Alaska Pipeline terminal at 9:12 pm March 23, 1989. William Murphy, an expert ship's pilot hired to maneuver the 986-foot vessel through the Valdez Narrows, was in control of the wheelhouse. At his side was the captain of the vessel, Joe Hazelwood. Helmsman Harry Claar was steering. After passing through Valdez Narrows, pilot Murphy left the vessel and Captain Hazelwood took over the wheelhouse.

The Exxon Valdez encountered icebergs in the shipping lanes and Captain Hazelwood ordered Claar to take the Exxon Valdez out of the shipping lanes to go around the icebergs. He then handed over control of the wheelhouse to Third Mate Gregory Cousins with precise instructions to turn back into the shipping lanes when the tanker reached a certain point. At that time, Claar was replaced by Helmsman Robert Kagan. For reasons that remain unclear, Cousins and Kagan failed to make the turn back into the shipping lanes and the ship ran aground on Bligh Reef at 12:04 am March 24, 1989. Captain Hazelwood was in his quarters at the time. LISTEN to Captain Hazelwood's radio call to the Valdez Vessel Traffic Center . Can I have more detail, please? Here's a detailed account of the accident as reported by the Alaska Oil Spill Commission in its 1990 Final Report . Was the captain drunk? The captain was seen in a local bar, admitted to having some alcoholic drinks, and a blood test showed alcohol in his blood even several hours after the accident. The captain has always insisted that he was not impaired by alcohol.

The state charged him with operating a vessel while under the influence of alcohol. A jury in Alaska, however, found him NOT GUILTY of that charge. The jury did find him guilty of negligent discharge of oil, a misdemeanor. Hazelwood was fined $50,000 and sentenced to 1,000 hours of community service in Alaska ( State of Alaska v. Hazelwood ). He completed the community service ahead of schedule in 2001. He picked up trash along the Seward Highway and worked at Bean's Cafe, a "soup kitchen" for the homeless in Anchorage, Alaska. What's being done to prevent another Exxon Valdez-type accident? See the Spill Prevention and Response page for a thorough answer. How much oil was spilled? Approximately 11 million gallons or 257,000 barrels or 35,000 metric tonnes (38,800 short tons). Picture the swimming pool at your school or in your community. The amount of spilled oil is roughly equivalent to 17 olympic-sized swimming pools. How much oil was the Exxon Valdez carrying?

53,094,510 gallons or 1,264,155 barrels How does the Exxon Valdez spill compare to other spills? The Exxon Valdez spill, though still one of the largest ever in the United States, has dropped from the top 50 internationally ( view a list of top oil spills worldwide ). It is widely considered the number one spill worldwide in terms of damage to the environment, however. 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. How many miles of shoreline were impacted by oil? Approximately 1,300 miles. 200 miles were heavily or moderately oiled (meaning the impact was obvious); 1,100 miles were lightly or very lightly oiled (meaning light sheen or occasional tarballs). By comparison, there is more than 9,000 miles of shoreline in the spill region. How large an area did the spill cover? From Bligh Reef the spill stretched 460 miles to the tiny village of Chignik on the Alaska Peninsula.

View a map of the spill How was the spill cleaned up? Complicated question. It took more than four summers of cleanup efforts before the effort was called off. Not all beaches were cleaned and some beaches remain oiled today. At its peak the cleanup effort included 10,000 workers, about 1,000 boats and roughly 100 airplanes and helicopters, known as Exxon's army, navy, and air force. It is widely believed, however, that wave action from winter storms did more to clean the beaches than all the human effort involved. How much did it cost? Exxon says it spent about $2.1 billion on the cleanup effort. What techniques were used? TIP: Check out National Geographic, January 1990, Pages 18-19 for a great illustration on how shoreline cleanup was conducted. Hot water treatment was popular until it was determined that the treatment could be causing more damage than the oil. Small organisms were being cooked by the hot water. High pressure cold water treatment and hot water treatment involved dozens of people holding fire hoses and spraying the beaches. The water, with floating oil, would trickle down to the shore.

The oil would be trapped within several layers of boom and either be scooped up, sucked up or absorbed using special oil-absorbent materials. Mechanical cleanup was attempted on some beaches. Backhoes and other heavy equipment would till the beaches to expose oil underneath so that it could be washed out. Many beaches were fertilized to promote growth of microscopic bacteria that eat the hydrocarbons. Known as bioremediation, this method was successful on several beaches where the oil was not too thick. More information about bioremediation techniques used can be found on the EPA website. A few solvents and chemical agents were used, although none extensively. How about more detail on cleanup techniques? How many animals died outright from the oil spill? No one knows. The carcasses of more than 35,000 birds and 1,000 sea otters were found after the spill, but since most carcasses sink, this is considered to be a small fraction of the actual death toll.

The best estimates are: 250,000 seabirds, 2,800 sea otters, 300 harbor seals, 250 bald eagles, up to 22 killer whales, and billions of salmon and herring eggs. How are the animals doing now? Lingering injuries continue to plague some injured species while others are fully recovered. See the Status of Injured Resources section of this web site. Other useful websites that may help answer this question: AP WAS THERE: Exxon Valdez Runs Aground in 1989 AP WAS THERE: Exxon Valdez Runs Aground in 1989 The Associated Press Share View photos In this photo taken April 9, 1989 file photo, a local fisherman inspects a dead California gray whale on the northern shore of Latouche Island, Alaska. The whale was found over the weekend in the oil-contaminated waters of Prince William Sound. Wildlife experts later determined that the whale had died before the Exxon Valdez oil spill occurred on March 24. Nearly 25 years after the Exxon Valdez oil spill off the coast of Alaska, some damage heals, some effects linger in Prince William Sound.

(AP Photo/John Gaps III, File) More EDITOR'S NOTE: Early on March 24, 1989, Dean Fosdick, the Alaska bureau chief of The Associated Press, was awakened around 5:30 a.m. by a phone call. The caller had a tip that a tanker had run aground outside Valdez. Fosdick quickly confirmed with a top Coast Guard official that the Exxon Valdez had struck a reef and was leaking thick, toxic crude oil into Prince William Sound, and sent out first word to the world of what at the time was the nation's worst-ever oil spill. The AP dispatched more than a dozen reporters, photographers and editors to cover the disaster. For a generation of people, the stories and the images of fouled coastline, of sea otters, herring and birds soaked in oil, of workers painstakingly washing crude off the rugged shoreline, became seared in their memories.

Twenty five years after their original publication, the AP is making this report, by Susan Gallagher, and images, taken by Jack Smith and John Gaps III, among others, available to subscribers: ___ GROUNDED TANKER SPILLS 270,000 BARRELS OF OIL OFF ALASKA A tanker ran aground on a reef and ripped holes in its hull Friday, gushing millions of gallons of thick crude oil into pristine Prince William Sound in the largest spill in U.S. history. The Exxon Valdez, a 987-foot tanker owned by Exxon Shipping Co. Inc., struck Bligh Reef about 25 miles from Valdez, the northernmost ice-free port in the United States, spilling an estimated 270,000 barrels or 11.3 million gallons of oil into the Pacific Ocean, the Coast Guard said. Early Friday the tanker was losing 20,000 gallons of oil per hour, but the outflow slowed to a trickle later Friday. An oil slick snaked about five miles from the ship as wind and tide pushed the crude oil into the sound and away from shore. "This is the largest oil spill in U.S.

history and it unfortunately took place in an enclosed water body with numerous islands, channels, bays and fiords," said Richard Golob, publisher of the Golob Oil Pollution Bulletin. The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation said three tanks on the ship's right side and five tanks along the centerline were punctured. The tanks on the left side appeared intact, the agency said. Exxon was bringing in three planeloads of cleanup crews from around the world. "A spill of this size in such a complex environment promises to be a cleanup nightmare," said Golob, a Cambridge, Mass.-based consultant whose firm has studied oil spills and environmental disasters for 15 years. "There's no way for the oil to go out to sea without passing through narrow channels," he said by telephone from Cambridge. "As a result a large shoreline area will most likely be polluted and undoubtedly the cleanup will be very extensive and labor intensive." In Washington, Interior Department spokesman Steve Goldstein said efforts had begun to evacuate waterfowl, sea otters and other wildlife from the danger area. "Obviously some of the waterfowl have already died," he said. The vessel had loaded 1.26 million barrels of oil at the Alyeska Pipeline Service Co.

marine terminal at Valdez and left late Thursday for Long Beach, Calif. The terminal was closed to tanker traffic early Friday while officials tried to deal with the spill. The Federal Aviation Administration closed airspace for six miles around the tanker to keep sightseers at bay. Officials cut the flow in the trans-Alaska oil pipeline to 800,000 barrels daily from 1.2 million barrels, which would let the terminal operate for nine days before the line has to shut down, said Alyeska spokesman Tom Brennan. Coast Guard Petty Officer John Gonzales said the tanker's captain was experienced and may have been maneuvering to avoid icebergs from Columbia Glacier when the vessel ran aground. Two Coast Guard investigators went aboard the tanker, he said. "The rock they hit is definitely not in tanker lanes," said Coast Guard Lt. Greg Stewart in Juneau. He said the reef is about 1 1/2 miles outside normal lanes. Gonzales said employees of the Alyeska Pipeline Service Co., which operates the trans-Alaska oil pipeline for a consortium of oil companies, were working to contain the oil with floating booms.

Don Cornett, Alaska coordinator for Exxon USA, said about two dozen people were aboard the Exxon Valdez. There were no immediate reports of injuries. Gov. Steve Cowper arrived in Valdez on Friday to evaluate the spill. He said state officials were considering the use of chemicals to disperse and sink the oil. "The problem is that chemical use can have a bad effect on marine life," he said. "It's going to be a tough judgment call." Cowper said conventional responses, such as booms, probably would not work because the spill is so large. "You probably couldn't do it (contain the spill) with all the equipment available in North America. This is a major spill by any reckoning. "We've been able to brag for a long time that there's never been a major oil spill in Valdez Harbor. Now, we can't do that anymore." The Alaska Department of Fish and Game called an emergency meeting to discuss the potential effect on marine mammals and birds in the sound. In addition to the terminal, the picturesque community of about 3,000 year-round residents about 125 miles east of Anchorage relies on the fishing and tourism industries. The sound is a playground for kayakers, sport fishermen and tourists.

Exxon's Cornett said his company was bringing three planeloads of oil spill response workers from all over the world to deal with the mess. He said the company hoped to pump the oil remaining aboard the grounded vessel onto another ship, refloat the Exxon Valdez and clean up the oil. "I haven't the foggiest idea what it will cost," he said. "It won't be cheap." Jason Wells, executive director of the Valdez Fisheries Development Association, said he believed the oil slick would cause little damage unless wind pushes it back toward Valdez. The fishing industry is between seasons. Wells said the black cod fishery is scheduled to begin April 1, but the region's major herring fishery is not expected to get under way until mid-April. But the spill likely will draw increasing fire from environmentalists sensitive about the trans-Alaska pipeline and efforts to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil development. "It's of concern for two reasons: one is the size of the spill and that this is such a sensitive, very productive area," said Lisa Speer, senior staff scientist with the Natural Resources Defense Council in New York. "This is a consequence of North Slope oil development that is rarely mentioned," she said.

Valdez City Manager Doug Griffin said the 800-mile trans-Alaska pipeline which carries oil from Prudhoe Bay to Valdez and the marine terminal have an enviable environmental record. "But this could be a catastrophic occurrence, so we're concerned," he said. "Living in Valdez, we've always worried that sometime somthing like this could happen," he said. Previously, the largest tanker spill was the Dec. 15, 1976, grounding of the Argo Merchant tanker off the Nantucket shoals, in which 7.6 million gallons of oil spilled, Golob said. The largest tanker spill in history was in the July 19, 1979, collision off Tobago of the supertankers Atlantic Empress and Aegean Captain, in which 300,000 tons - more than 80 million gallons - of oil was lost.

Reblog Exxon Valdez Oil Spill (1989) - The New York Times The New York Times Exxon Valdez Oil Spill (1989) | Search Supported by Exxon Valdez Oil Spill (1989) News about Exxon Valdez Oil Spill (1989), including commentary and archival articles published in The New York Times. More Updated: Aug. 3, 2010 In March 1989, the Exxon Valdez supertanker ran aground on Bligh Reef, ruptured and spilled 11 million gallons of crude oil into Alaska's Prince William Sound. The spill was the worst that had occured up to that point in American history, damaging more than 1,300 miles of shoreline, disrupting the lives and livelihoods of people in the region and killing hundreds of thousands of birds and marine animals. It occurred after the ship's captain, Joseph J. Hazelwood, left the bridge at a crucial moment. Mr. Hazelwood, an alcoholic, had downed five double vodkas on the night of the disaster, according to witnesses. The spill stopped after just a few days but the recovery may not have an end date.

The damage to the fishing industry and to native subsistence hunting has lasted for years. Exxon originally was ordered by a federal court to pay $5 billion in punitive damages in 1994. A federal appeal in 2006 reduced it to $2.5 billion. In 2008 the United States Supreme Court further reduced the damages to just over $500 million. More than $2 billion has been spent on cleanup and recovery. Exxon has paid at least $1 billion in damages. The accident helped to create a new industry around environmental groups, scientific organizations, experts in the psychological trauma of oil spills. A network of fishermen is now trained and paid by the oil industry to respond to future disasters. BBC ON THIS DAY | 24 | 1989: Exxon Valdez creates oil slick disaster About This Site | Text Only 1989: Exxon Valdez creates oil slick disaster An oil tanker has run aground on a reef off the Alaskan coast, releasing gallons of crude oil into the sea.

The Exxon Valdez got into trouble in Prince William Sound when it hit Bligh Reef, splitting its side open and releasing oil, with reports of an eight-mile (12.8km) slick. High winds are affecting attempts to suck the slick from the sea's surface and residents have reported poor air quality as emergency crews try to burn off the top layer of oil. Booms, which are acting like necklaces on the surface of the sea to contain the oil, are failing to do the job. Environmentalists are also battling to save sea ducks, which number up to 10 million in the area. Ducks and seals have been discovered drenched in oil near the tanker. The Coast Guard is dropping chemicals in an attempt to break up the slick but local officials say Exxon is responding too slowly. The clean-up is not proceeding well Exxon Shipping president, Frank Iarossi Exxon Shipping president Frank Iarossi said: "The clean-up is not proceeding well. Believe me, that is an understatement. We have a mess on our hands." Mr Iarossi said the oil tanker was a mile off course although its navigational systems were working.

It had encountered icebergs in the shipping lanes and Captain Joe Hazelwood ordered his helmsman to take the Valdez out of the lanes to go around the icebergs. The crew failed to make the turn back into the shipping lanes and the ship ran aground at 1204 local time. Cpt Hazelwood was in his quarters at the time. A spokesman for the Alaska department of environment said efforts to steer the Valdez back into the narrow shipping lane was like "trying to park a Cadillac in a Volkswagen spot". Businessmen are afraid the oil slick will affect tourism in the area, famous for whale-watching boat trips. Office of Exxon Valdez Oil Spill (EVOS) Damage Assessment and Restoration | NOAA Fisheries Alaska Regional Office Home » Habitat Conservation Office of Exxon Valdez Oil Spill (EVOS) Damage Assessment and Restoration On March 24, 1989 the oil tanker Exxon Valdez ran aground on Bligh Reef in Prince William Sound, Alaska, spilling an estimated 11 million gallons of crude oil across 1,300 miles of coastline - a catastrophic event that lead to one of the most thorough examinations of the effects of oil on the environment.

While the vast majority of the spill area now appears to have recovered, pockets of crude oil remain in some locations, and there is evidence that not all resources injured by the spill have recovered to the previous state The Exxon Valdez Oil Spill (EVOS) Trustee Council was established with funds from the legal settlement between the State of Alaska, the Federal Government and Exxon to develop research, restoration and habitat conservation plans for the spill area. Current studies underway are directed towards long term monitoring and research. The NMFS Alaska Regional Administrator represents NOAA on the Council and oversees the implementation of Cooperative Agreements that NOAA has established on behalf of the EVOS council. Information on these programs can be found through EVOS Trustee Council . General Oil Spill Information Exxon Valdez Runs Aground in 1989 Exxon Valdez Runs Aground in 1989 March 24, 2014 by The Associated Press In this photo taken April 9, 1989 file photo, a local fisherman inspects a dead California gray whale on the northern shore of Latouche Island, Alaska. The whale was found over the weekend in the oil-contaminated waters of Prince William Sound.

Wildlife experts later determined that the whale had died before the Exxon Valdez oil spill occurred on March 24. Nearly 25 years after the Exxon Valdez oil spill off the coast of Alaska, some damage heals, some effects linger in Prince William Sound. (AP Photo/John Gaps III, File) Early on March 24, 1989, Dean Fosdick, the Alaska bureau chief of The Associated Press, was awakened around 5:30 a.m. by a phone call. The caller had a tip that a tanker had run aground outside Valdez. Fosdick quickly confirmed with a top Coast Guard official that the Exxon Valdez had struck a reef and was leaking thick, toxic crude oil into Prince William Sound, and sent out first word to the world of what at the time was the nation's worst-ever oil spill. The AP dispatched more than a dozen reporters, photographers and editors to cover the disaster. For a generation of people, the stories and the images of fouled coastline, of sea otters, herring and birds soaked in oil, of workers painstakingly washing crude off the rugged shoreline, became seared in their memories.

Twenty five years after their original publication, the AP is making this report, by Susan Gallagher, and images, taken by Jack Smith and John Gaps III: GROUNDED TANKER SPILLS 270,000 BARRELS OF OIL OFF ALASKA A tanker ran aground on a reef and ripped holes in its hull Friday, gushing millions of gallons of thick crude oil into pristine Prince William Sound in the largest spill in U.S. history. The Exxon Valdez, a 987-foot (300-meter) tanker owned by Exxon Shipping Co. Inc., struck Bligh Reef about 25 miles (40 kilometers) from Valdez, the northernmost ice-free port in the United States, spilling an estimated 270,000 barrels or 11.3 million gallons (43 million liters) of oil into the Pacific Ocean, the Coast Guard said. Early Friday the tanker was losing 20,000 gallons (75,700 million liters) of oil per hour, but the outflow slowed to a trickle later Friday.

An oil slick snaked about five miles from the ship as wind and tide pushed the crude oil into the sound and away from shore. "This is the largest oil spill in U.S. history and it unfortunately took place in an enclosed water body with numerous islands, channels, bays and fiords," said Richard Golob, publisher of the Golob Oil Pollution Bulletin. In this April 17, 1989, file photo, a worker makes his way across the polluted shore of Block Island, Alaska, as efforts are underway to test techniques to clean up the oil spill of the tanker Exxon Valdez in Prince William Sound. The worker periodically uses the bucket to scoop up oil washing back onto shore from the containment booms. Nearly 25 years after the Exxon Valdez oil spill off the coast of Alaska, some damage heals, some effects linger in Prince William Sound. (AP Photo/John Gaps III, File) The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation said three tanks on the ship's right side and five tanks along the centerline were punctured. The tanks on the left side appeared intact, the agency said. Exxon was bringing in three planeloads of cleanup crews from around the world.

"A spill of this size in such a complex environment promises to be a cleanup nightmare," said Golob, a Cambridge, Massachusetts-based consultant whose firm has studied oil spills and environmental disasters for 15 years. "There's no way for the oil to go out to sea without passing through narrow channels," he said by telephone from Cambridge. "As a result a large shoreline area will most likely be polluted and undoubtedly the cleanup will be very extensive and labor intensive." In Washington, Interior Department spokesman Steve Goldstein said efforts had begun to evacuate waterfowl, sea otters and other wildlife from the danger area. "Obviously some of the waterfowl have already died," he said. In this April 1989 file photo, an oil soaked bird is examined on an island in Prince William Sound, Alaska. Exxon Mobil Corp. was ordered Monday, June 15, 2009 to pay about $500 million in interest on punitive damages for the Exxon Valdez oil spill off Alaska, nearly doubling the payout to Alaska Natives, fishermen, business owners and others harmed by the 1989 disaster. The ruling was issued by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.

Nearly 25 years after the Exxon Valdez oil spill off the coast of Alaska, some damage heals, some effects linger in Prince William Sound. (AP Photo/Jack Smith, File) The vessel had loaded 1.26 million barrels of oil at the Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. marine terminal at Valdez and left late Thursday for Long Beach, California. The terminal was closed to tanker traffic early Friday while officials tried to deal with the spill. The Federal Aviation Administration closed airspace for six miles around the tanker to keep sightseers at bay. Officials cut the flow in the trans-Alaska oil pipeline to 800,000 barrels daily from 1.2 million barrels, which would let the terminal operate for nine days before the line has to shut down, said Alyeska spokesman Tom Brennan. Coast Guard Petty Officer John Gonzales said the tanker's captain was experienced and may have been maneuvering to avoid icebergs from Columbia Glacier when the vessel ran aground. Two Coast Guard investigators went aboard the tanker, he said. "The rock they hit is definitely not in tanker lanes," said Coast Guard Lt. Greg Stewart in Juneau.

He said the reef is about 1 1/2 miles (two kilometers) outside normal lanes. Gonzales said employees of the Alyeska Pipeline Service Co., which operates the trans-Alaska oil pipeline for a consortium of oil companies, were working to contain the oil with floating booms. Don Cornett, Alaska coordinator for Exxon USA, said about two dozen people were aboard the Exxon Valdez. There were no immediate reports of injuries. Gov. Steve Cowper arrived in Valdez on Friday to evaluate the spill. He said state officials were considering the use of chemicals to disperse and sink the oil. "The problem is that chemical use can have a bad effect on marine life," he said. "It's going to be a tough judgment call." In this April 4, 1989, file photo, the grounded tanker Exxon Valdez, left, unloads oil onto a smaller tanker, San Francisco, as efforts to re-float the ship continue on Prince William Sound, 25 miles from Valdez, Alaska. The 987-foot tanker, carrying 53 million gallons of crude, struck Bligh Reef at 12:04 a.m.

on March 24, 1989, and within hours unleashed an estimated 10.8 million gallons of thick, toxic crude oil into the water. Storms and currents then smeared it over 1,300 miles of shoreline. Twenty five years later, the region, its people and its wildfire are still recovering. (AP Photo, File) Cowper said conventional responses, such as booms, probably would not work because the spill is so large. "You probably couldn't do it (contain the spill) with all the equipment available in North America. This is a major spill by any reckoning. "We've been able to brag for a long time that there's never been a major oil spill in Valdez Harbor. Now, we can't do that anymore." The Alaska Department of Fish and Game called an emergency meeting to discuss the potential effect on marine mammals and birds in the sound. In addition to the terminal, the picturesque community of about 3,000 year-round residents about 125 miles (200 million kilometers) east of Anchorage relies on the fishing and tourism industries. The sound is a playground for kayakers, sport fishermen and tourists.

In this April 2, 1989, file photo, workers try to remove globs of oil from Baked Island in Prince William Sound, Alaska. A massive oil slick covers Prince William Sound stretching over 100 miles as the result of the tanker Exxon Valdez running aground March 24, 1989, spilling more than 10-million gallons of oil. Nearly 25 years after the Exxon Valdez oil spill off the coast of Alaska, some damage heals, some effects linger in Prince William Sound. (AP Photo/Jack Smith, File) Exxon's Cornett said his company was bringing three planeloads of oil spill response workers from all over the world to deal with the mess. He said the company hoped to pump the oil remaining aboard the grounded vessel onto another ship, refloat the Exxon Valdez and clean up the oil. "I haven't the foggiest idea what it will cost," he said. "It won't be cheap." In this April 16, 1989, file photo, a clean-up worker rakes through crude oil, contained by floating booms off the waters of Prince William Sound, Alaska.

The oil, contained here in Snug Harbor off Knight Island, was later sucked off the water by a U.S. Coast Guard skimmer. Oil from the tanker Exxon Valdez continues to foul the waters of southern Alaska. Nearly 25 years after the Exxon Valdez oil spill off the coast of Alaska, some damage heals, some effects linger in Prince William Sound. (AP Photo/John Gaps III, File) Jason Wells, executive director of the Valdez Fisheries Development Association, said he believed the oil slick would cause little damage unless wind pushes it back toward Valdez. The fishing industry is between seasons. Wells said the black cod fishery is scheduled to begin April 1, but the region's major herring fishery is not expected to get under way until mid-April. But the spill likely will draw increasing fire from environmentalists sensitive about the trans-Alaska pipeline and efforts to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil development. "It's of concern for two reasons: one is the size of the spill and that this is such a sensitive, very productive area," said Lisa Speer, senior staff scientist with the Natural Resources Defense Council in New York.

In this April 21, 1989, file photo, a skimmer is used for shoreline oil in Naked Island, Alaska. It collects the oil from off the water surface. The conveyor belt moves the oil onto a barge for storage. Nearly 25 years after the Exxon Valdez oil spill off the coast of Alaska, some damage heals, some effects linger in Prince William Sound. (AP Photo/Rob Stapleton, File) "This is a consequence of North Slope oil development that is rarely mentioned," she said. Valdez City Manager Doug Griffin said the 800-mile (1,300 kilometer) trans-Alaska pipeline which carries oil from Prudhoe Bay to Valdez and the marine terminal have an enviable environmental record. "But this could be a catastrophic occurrence, so we're concerned," he said. "Living in Valdez, we've always worried that sometime something like this could happen," he said. In this April 18, 1989 file photo, a rescued sea otter is restrained and washed by workers at a local animal facility after five of the oil covered mammals were captured in the fouled waters of Prince William Sound, Alaska.

The list of animals injured and killed from the spill of the oil tanker Exxon Valdez includes sea otters, deer, eagles, owls and a host of other water fowl gathered up by rescue workers. Nearly 25 years after the Exxon Valdez oil spill off the coast of Alaska, some damage heals, some effects linger in Prince William Sound. (AP Photo/John Gaps III, File) Previously, the largest tanker spill was the Dec. 15, 1976, grounding of the Argo Merchant tanker off the Nantucket shoals, in which 7.6 million gallons (29 million liters) of oil spilled, Golob said. The largest tanker spill in history was in the July 19, 1979, collision off Tobago of the supertankers Atlantic Empress and Aegean Captain, in which 300,000 tons - more than 80 million gallons (300 million liters) - of oil was lost.

Exxon Valdez Oil Spill | World History Project Mar 24 1989 Exxon Valdez Oil Spill On March 24, 1989 the oil tanker Exxon Valdez ran aground on Bligh Reef in Prince William Sound, Alaska, spilling an estimated 11 million gallons of crude oil across 1,300 miles of coastline - a catastrophic event that lead to one of the most thorough examinations of the effects of oil on the environment. While the vast majority of the spill area now appears to have recovered, pockets of crude oil remain in some locations, and there is evidence that some damage is continuing. Source: National Marine FIsheries Service Added by: Carla Friedman The final legacy of the Exxon Valdez oil spill is not a pristine ecosystem’s defilement, or the destruction of millions of animals. It’s the accumulation of scientific knowledge about oil in our environment. Contrary to the conventional wisdom of 1989, oil isn’t just a problem in a the immediate aftermath of a spill, when coastlines and wildlife are covered in a hideous, highly photogenic slick. It wreaks a subtle, long-term havoc, as toxic chemicals enter ecological cycles and take decades to break down.

That’s not only true in Prince William Sound, but around the United States, where millions of gallons of oil spill every single year. "Most of the oil that runs off roads and parking lots doesn’t go into sewage treatment plants," said Mary Kelly, co-director of the Environmental Defense Fund’s land, water and wildlife program. "It just runs off into waterways." Source: Brandon Keim, Wired Added by: Carla Friedman The recent $5 billion verdict against Exxon in the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill off the Alaskan coast has renewed the barrage of media and public condemnation of punitive awards that are far too extravagant and raised the question of jury judiciousness. Such criticism, however, is unwarranted and it ignores the compelling facts of the Exxon case. To gain initial approval for the trans-Alaska pipeline, Exxon and its six oil company partners promised to use double-hulled tankers, to have pilots and escort tugs during the entire transit of Prince William Sound and to do all other things necessary to prevent a major spill in Prince William Sound. They also promised to have equipment on hand that would clean up a 200,000 barrel spill. But shortly after approval was granted, these promises were broken.

The Exxon Valdez was single-hulled, the pilot got off shortly after entering Prince William Sound, there were no escort tugs and there was no capacity to clean up a spill one-tenth the size of the Exxon Valdez spill. This behavior put in jeopardy one of the last pristine environments in the world, Prince William Sound. Source: Richard Gerry, San Diego Union-Tribune Added by: Carla Friedman The Exxon Valdez oil spill occurred in Prince William Sound, Alaska, on March 24, 1989, when the Exxon Valdez, an oil tanker bound for Long Beach, California, struck Prince William Sound's Bligh Reef and spilled 10.8 to 32 million US gallons (40.9 to 120 million litres, or 260,000 to 750,000 barrels) of crude oil. It is considered to be one of the most devastating human-caused environmental disasters ever to occur in history. As significant as the Valdez spill was — the largest ever in U.S. waters until the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill — it ranks well down on the list of the world's largest oil spills in terms of volume released.

However, Prince William Sound's remote location, accessible only by helicopter, plane and boat, made government and industry response efforts difficult and severely taxed existing plans for response. The region is a habitat for salmon, sea otters, seals and seabirds. The oil, originally extracted at the Prudhoe Bay oil field, eventually covered 1,300 miles (2,100 km) of coastline, and 11,000 square miles (28,000 km2) of ocean. The Account of Events During the 1989 Exxon Valdez Oil Tanker Hit on Bligh Relief in Alaska | Kibin Get ideas from this essay and see how your work stacks up 5 Pages The Account of Events During the 1989 Exxon Valdez Oil Tanker Hit on Bligh Relief in Alaska Sign Up & Access Essays Already a member? Login here Pages: 5 This preview is partially blurred. Sign up to view the full document. Sign Up & Access Essays Already a member? Login here End of preview Upgrade to view the full document This is an unformatted preview.

Sign up to view the full document End of preview Upgrade to view the full document ABSTRACTIn March of 1989 the Exxon Valdez oil tanker ran aground on Bligh Reefin Prince William Sound Alaska An eighteen foot wide hole was ripped into thehull and 109 million gallons of crude oil spilled into the ocean In thefollowing weeks many things transpired This paper will discuss the cleanupthe damage and the results of the biggest oil spill in United States historyOn March 24 1989 in Prince William Sound Alaska the Exxon Valdez wasmoving South West after leaving Port Valdez The ship was carrying over fiftymillion gallons of crude oil When the Valdez was only twenty-eight miles fromthe port it ran aground on Bligh reef The bottom was ripped open and 109million gallons of North Slope Crude Oil spilled into the frozen Alaskan watersat a rate of two hundred thousand gallons per minute The remaining forty-twomillion gallons were off loaded In the ensuing days more than 1200 miles ofshoreline were hit with oil This area included four National Wildlife Refugeesthree National Parks and Chugach National ForestWithin hours smaller tanker vessels arrived in order to off load theremaining oil

 Unfortunately the cleanup effort was hindered by an inadequatecleanup plan that had been created during the 1970s These plans outlined howan oil spill would be handled including provisions for maintaining equipmentsuch as containment booms and skimmer boats The plans also called for aresponse team to be on twenty-four hour notice Unfortunately the plans weregood on paper only A spill of this size had not been anticipated Thereforethe response teams had been demobilized and the equipment that was supposed tobe ready at all times was either too far away or nonexistent Precious hourswere also wasted as Corporations the Alaskan State Government and the Nationalgovernment argued over who should take control of the situation The argumentsensued after debates over who would pay for what who was responsible for whatand who would do the best jobThe local fishermen were a big help with the cleanup effort Theybattled with the @Kibin is a lifesaver for my essay right now!!

- Sandra Slivka, student @ UC Berkeley Wow, this is the best essay help I've ever received! - Camvu Pham, student @ U of M If I'd known about @Kibin in college, I would have gotten much more sleep - Jen Soust, alumni @ UCLA Oil Spill Facts - Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council Final Report, Alaska Oil Spill Commission Published February 1990 by the State of Alaska The following is a reprint of the text from pages 5-14. Graphics are not included. No one anticipated any unusual problems as the Exxon Valdez left the Alyeska Pipeline Terminal at 9:12 p.m., Alaska Standard Time, on March 23,1989. The 987 foot ship, second newest in Exxon Shipping Company's 20-tanker fleet, was loaded with 53,094,5 10 gallons (1,264,155 barrels) of North Slope crude oil bound for Long Beach, California.

Tankers carrying North Slope crude oil had safely transited Prince William Sound more than 8,700 times in the 12 years since oil began flowing through the trans-Alaska pipeline, with no major disasters and few serious incidents. This experience gave little reason to suspect impending disaster. Yet less than three hours later, the Exxon Valdez grounded at Bligh Reef, rupturing eight of its 11 cargo tanks and spewing some 10.8 million gallons of crude oil into Prince William Sound. Until the Exxon Valdez piled onto Bligh Reef, the system designed to carry 2 million barrels of North Slope oil to West Coast and Gulf Coast markets daily had worked perhaps too well. At least partly because of the success of the Valdez tanker trade, a general complacency had come to permeate the operation and oversight of the entire system. That complacency and success were shattered when the Exxon Valdez ran hard aground shortly after midnight on March 24. No human lives were lost as a direct result of the disaster, though four deaths were associated with the cleanup effort. Indirectly, however, the human and natural losses were immense - to fisheries, subsistence livelihoods, tourism, wildlife.

The most important loss for many who will never visit Prince William Sound was the aesthetic sense that something sacred in the relatively unspoiled land and waters of Alaska had been defiled. Industry's insistence on regulating the Valdez tanker trade its own way, and government's incremental accession to industry pressure, had produced a disastrous failure of the system. The people of Alaska's Southcentral coast - not to mention Exxon and the Alyeska Pipeline Service Company - would come to pay a heavy price. The American people, increasingly anxious over environmental degradation and devoted to their image of Alaska's wilderness, reacted with anger. A spill that ranked 34th on a list of the world's largest oil spills in the past 25 years came to be seen as the nation's biggest environmental disaster since Three Mile Island. The Exxon Valdez had reached the Alyeska Marine Terminal at 11:30 p.m. on March 22 to take on cargo. It carried a crew of 19 plus the captain. Third Mate Gregory Cousins, who became a central figure in the grounding, was relieved of watch duty at 11:50 p.m. Ship and terminal crews began loading crude oil onto the tanker at 5:05 a.m.

on March 23 and increased loading to its full rate of 100,000 barrels an hour by 5:30 a.m. Chief Mate James R. Kunkel supervised the loading. March 23, 1989 was a rest day of sorts for some members of the Exxon Valdez crew. Capt. Joseph Hazelwood, chief engineer Jerry Glowacki and radio officer Joel Roberson left the Exxon Valdez about 11:00 a.m., driven from the Alyeska terminal into the town of Valdez by marine pilot William Murphy, who had piloted the Exxon Valdez into port the previous night and would take it back out through Valdez Narrows on its fateful trip to Bligh Reef. When the three ship's officers left the terminal that day, they expected the Exxon Valdez's sailing time to be 10 p.m. that evening. The posted sailing time was changed, however, during the day, and when the party arrived back at the ship at 8:24 p.m., they learned the sailing time had been fixed at 9 p.m.

Hazelwood spent most of the day conducting ship's business, shopping and, according to testimony before the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), drinking alcoholic beverages with the other ship's officers in at least two Valdez bars. Testimony indicated Hazelwood drank nonalcoholic beverages that day at lunch, a number of alcoholic drinks late that afternoon while relaxing in a Valdez bar, and at least one more drink at a bar while the party waited for pizza to take with them back to the ship. Loading of the Exxon Valdez had been completed for an hour by the time the group returned to the ship. They left Valdez by taxi cab at about 7:30 p.m., got through Alyeska terminal gate security at 8:24 p.m. and boarded ship. Radio officer Roberson, who commenced pre-voyage tests and checks in the radio room soon after arriving at the ship, later said no one in the group going ashore had expected the ship to be ready to leave as soon as they returned. Both the cab driver and the gate security guard later testified that no one in the party appeared to be intoxicated.

A ship's agent who met with Hazelwood after he got back on the ship said it appeared the captain may have been drinking because his eyes were watery, but she did not smell alcohol on his breath. Ship's pilot Murphy, however, later indicated that he did detect the odor of alcohol on Hazelwood's breath. Hazelwood's activities in town that day and on the ship that night would become a key focus of accident inquiries, the cause of a state criminal prosecution, and the basis of widespread media sensation. Without intending to minimize the impact of Hazelwood's actions, however, one basic conclusion of this report is that the grounding at Bligh Reef represents much more than the error of a possibly drunken skipper: It was the result of the gradual degradation of oversight and safety practices that had been intended, 12 years before, to safeguard and backstop the inevitable mistakes of human beings. Third Mate Cousins performed required tests of navigational, mechanical and safety gear at 7:48 p.m., and all systems were found to be in working order. The Exxon Valdez slipped its last mooring line at 9:12 p.m. and, with the assistance of two tugboats, began maneuvering away from the berth.

The tanker's deck log shows it was clear of the dock at 9:21 p.m. Dock to grounding The ship was under the direction of pilot Murphy and accompanied by a single tug for the passage through Valdez Narrows, the constricted harbor entrance about 7 miles from the berth. According to Murphy, Hazelwood left the bridge at 9:35 p.m. and did not return until about 11:10 p.m., even though Exxon company policy requires two ship's officers on the bridge during transit of Valdez Narrows. The passage through Valdez Narrows proceeded uneventfully. At 10:49 p.m. the ship reported to the Valdez Vessel Traffic Center that it had passed out of the narrows and was increasing speed. At 11:05 p.m. Murphy asked that Hazelwood be called to the bridge in anticipation of his disembarking from the ship, and at 11: 10 p.m. Hazelwood returned. Murphy disembarked at 11:24 p.m., with assistance from Third Mate Cousins.

While Cousins was helping Murphy and then helping stow the pilot ladder, Hazelwood was the only officer on the bridge and there was no lookout even though one was required, according to an NTSB report. At 11:25 p.m. Hazelwood informed the Vessel Traffic Center that the pilot had departed and that he was increasing speed to sea speed. He also reported that "judging, ah, by our radar, we'll probably divert from the TSS [traffic separation scheme] and end up in the inbound lane if there is no conflicting traffic." The traffic center indicated concurrence, stating there was no reported traffic in the inbound lane. The traffic separation scheme is designed to do just that - separate incoming and outgoing tankers in Prince William Sound and keep them in clear, deep waters during their transit. It consists of inbound and outbound lanes, with a half-mile-wide separation zone between them. Small icebergs from nearby Columbia Glacier occasionally enter the traffic lanes. Captains had the choice of slowing down to push through them safely or deviating from their lanes if traffic permitted.

Hazelwood's report, and the Valdez traffic center's concurrence, meant the ship would change course to leave the western, outbound lane, cross the separation zone and, if necessary, enter the eastern, inbound lane to avoid floating ice. At no time did the Exxon Valdez report or seek permission to depart farther east from the inbound traffic lane; but that is exactly what it did. At 11:30 p.m. Hazelwood informed the Valdez traffic center that he was turning the ship toward the east on a heading of 200 degrees and reducing speed to "wind my way through the ice" (engine logs, however, show the vessel's speed continued to increase). At 11: 39 Cousins plotted a fix that showed the ship in the middle of the traffic separation scheme. Hazelwood ordered a further course change to a heading of 180 degrees (due south) and, according to the helmsman, directed that the ship be placed on autopilot. The second course change was not reported to the Valdez traffic center.

For a total of 19 or 20 minutes the ship sailed south - through the inbound traffic lane, then across its easterly boundary and on toward its peril at Bligh Reef. Traveling at approximately 12 knots, the Exxon Valdez crossed the traffic lanes' easterly boundary at 11:47 p.m. At 11:52 p.m. the command was given to place the ship's engine on "load program up"-a computer program that, over a span of 43 minutes, would increase engine speed from 55 RPM to sea speed full ahead at 78.7 RPM. After conferring with Cousins about where and how to return the ship to its designated traffic lane, Hazelwood left the bridge. The time, according to NTSB testimony, was approximately 11:53 p.m. By this time Third Mate Cousins had been on duty for six hours and was scheduled to be relieved by Second Mate Lloyd LeCain. But Cousins, knowing LeCain had worked long hours during loading operations during the day, had told the second mate he could take his time in relieving him.

Cousins did not call LeCain to awaken him for the midnight-to-4-a.m. watch, instead remaining on duty himself Cousins was the only officer on the bridge - a situation that violated company policy and perhaps contributed to the accident. A second officer on the bridge might have been more alert to the danger in the ship's position, the failure of its efforts to turn, the autopilot steering status, and the threat of ice in the tanker lane. Cousins' duty hours and rest periods became an issue in subsequent investigations. Exxon Shipping Company has said the third mate slept between I a.m. and 7:20 a.m. the morning of March 23 and again between 1: 30 p.m. and 5 p.m., for a total of nearly 10 hours sleep in the 24 hours preceding the accident. But testimony before the NTSB suggests that Cousins "pounded the deck" that afternoon, that he did paperwork in his cabin, and that he ate dinner starting at 4:30 p.m. before relieving the chief mate at 5 p.m.

An NTSB report shows that Cousins' customary in-port watches were scheduled from 5:50 a.m. to 11:50 a.m. and again from 5:50 p.m. to 11:50 p.m. Testimony before the NTSB suggests that Cousins may have been awake and generally at work for up to 18 hours preceding the accident. Appendix F of this report documents a direct link between fatigue and human performance error generally and notes that 80 percent or more of marine accidents are attributable to human error. Appendix F also discusses the impact of environmental factors such as long work hours, poor work conditions (such as toxic fumes), monotony and sleep deprivation. "This can create a scenario where a pilot and/or crew members may become the "accident waiting to happen." ... It is conceivable," the report continues, "that excessive work hours (sleep deprivation) contributed to an overall impact of fatigue, which in turn contributed to the Exxon Valdez grounding." Manning policies also may have affected crew fatigue.

Whereas tankers in the 1950s carried a crew of 40 to 42 to manage about 6.3 million gallons of oil, according to Arthur McKenzie of the Tanker Advisory Center in New York, the Exxon Valdez carried a crew of 19 to transport 53 million gallons of oil. Minimum vessel manning limits are set by the U.S. Coast Guard, but without any agencywide standard for policy. The Coast Guard has certified Exxon tankers for a minimum of 15 persons (14 if the radio officer is not required). Frank Iarossi, president of Exxon Shipping Company, has stated that his company's policy is to reduce its standard crew complement to 16 on fully automated, diesel-powered vessels by 1990. "While Exxon has defended their actions as an economic decision," the manning report says, "criticism has been leveled against them for manipulating overtime records to better justify reduced manning levels." Iarossi and Exxon maintain that modem automated vessel technology permits reduced manning without compromise of safety or function.

"Yet the literature on the subject suggests that automation does not replace humans in systems, rather, it places the human in a different, more demanding role. Automation typically reduces manual workload but increases mental workload." (Appendix F) Whatever the NTSB or the courts may finally determine concerning Cousins' work hours that day, manning limits and crew fatigue have received considerable attention as contributing factors to the accident. The Alaska Oil Spill Commission recommends that crew levels be set high enough not only to permit safe operations during ordinary conditions - which, in the Gulf of Alaska, can be highly demanding - but also to provide enough crew backups and rest periods that crisis situations can be confronted by a fresh, well-supported crew. Accounts and interpretations differ as to events on the bridge from the time Hazelwood left his post to the moment the Exxon Valdez struck Bligh Reef. NTSB testimony by crew members and interpretations of evidence by the State of Alaska conflict in key areas, leaving the precise timing of events still a mystery. But the rough outlines are discernible: Some time during the critical period before the grounding during the first few minutes of Good Friday, March 24, Cousins plotted a fix indicating it was time to turn the vessel back toward the traffic lanes.

About the same time, lookout Maureen Jones reported that Bligh Reef light appeared broad off the starboard bow - i.e., off the bow at an angle of about 45 degrees. The light should have been seen off the port side (the left side of a ship, facing forward); its position off the starboard side indicated great peril for a supertanker that was out of its lanes and accelerating through close waters. Cousins gave right rudder commands to cause the desired course change and took the ship off autopilot. He also phoned Hazelwood in his cabin to inform him the ship was turning back toward the traffic lanes and that, in the process, it would be getting into ice. When the vessel did not turn swiftly enough, Cousins ordered further right rudder with increasing urgency. Finally, realizing the ship was in serious trouble, Cousins phoned Hazelwood again to report the danger - and at the end of the conversation, felt an initial shock to the vessel. The grounding, described by helmsman Robert Kagan as "a bumpy ride" and by Cousins as six "very sharp jolts," occurred at 12:04 a.m.

On the rocks The vessel came to rest facing roughly southwest, perched across its middle on a pinnacle of Bligh Reef. Eight of 11 cargo tanks were punctured. Computations aboard the Exxon Valdez showed that 5.8 million gallons had gushed out of the tanker in the first three and a quarter hours. Weather conditions at the site were, reported to be 33 degrees F, slight drizzle rain/snow mixed, north winds at 10 knots and visibility 10 miles at the time of the grounding. The Exxon Valdez nightmare had begun. Hazelwood - perhaps drunk, certainly facing a position of great difficulty and confusion - would struggle vainly to power the ship off its perch on Bligh Reef. The response capabilities of Alyeska Pipeline Service Company to deal with the spreading sea of oil would be tested and found to be both unexpectedly slow and woefully inadequate. The worldwide capabilities of Exxon Corp. would mobilize huge quantities of equipment and personnel to respond to the spill - but not in the crucial first few hours and days when containment and cleanup efforts are at a premium. The U.S.

Coast Guard would demonstrate its prowess at ship salvage, protecting crews and lightering operations, but prove utterly incapable of oil spill containment and response. State and federal agencies would show differing levels of preparedness and command capability. And the waters of Prince William Sound - and eventually more than 1,000 miles of beach in Southcentral Alaska - would be fouled by 10.8 million gallons of crude oil. After feeling the grounding Hazelwood rushed to the bridge, arriving as the ship came to rest. He immediately gave a series of rudder orders in an attempt to free the vessel, and power to the ship's engine remained in the "load program up" condition for about 15 minutes after impact. Chief Mate Kunkel went to the engine control room and determined that eight cargo tanks and two ballast tanks had been ruptured; he concluded the cargo tanks had lost an average of 10 feet of cargo, with approximately 67 feet of cargo remaining in each. He informed Hazelwood of his initial damage assessment and was instructed to perform stability and stress analysis. At 12:19 a.m. Hazelwood ordered that the vessel's engine be reduced to idle speed.

At 12:26 a.m., Hazelwood radioed the Valdez traffic center and reported his predicament to Bruce Blandford, a civilian employee of the Coast Guard who was on duty. "We've fetched up, ah, hard aground, north of Goose Island, off Bligh Reef and, ah, evidently leaking some oil and we're gonna be here for a while and, ah, if you want, ah, so you're notified." That report triggered a nightlong cascade of phone calls reaching from Valdez to Anchorage to Houston and eventually around the world as the magnitude of the spill became known and Alyeska and Exxon searched for cleanup machinery and materials. Hazelwood, meanwhile, was not finished with efforts to power the Exxon Valdez off the reef. At approximately 12:30 a.m., Chief Mate Kunkel used a computer program to determine that though stress on the vessel exceeded acceptable limits, the ship still had required stability. He went to the bridge to advise Hazelwood that the vessel should not go to sea or leave the area. The skipper directed him to return to the control room to continue assessing the damage and to determine available options.

At 12:35 p.m., Hazelwood ordered the engine back on - and eventually to "full ahead" -- and began another series of rudder commands in an effort to free the vessel. After running his computer program again another way, Kunkel concluded that the ship did not have acceptable stability without being supported by the reef. The chief mate relayed his new analysis to the captain at 1 a.m. and again recommended that the ship not leave the area. Nonetheless, Hazelwood kept the engine running until 1:41 a.m., when he finally abandoned efforts to get the vessel off the reef. Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council | dfg.evos.restoration@alaska.gov | Postal Address: 4210 University Drive Anchorage, AK 99508-4626 | Physical Address: Grace Hall, 4230 University Drive, Ste.

220 | Anchorage, AK 99508-4650 | Phone: (907) 278-8012 | Fax: (907) 276-7178 | Toll-Free: (800) 478-7745 | Office Hours: Mon through Fri, 8am-4:30pm ARLIS | Alaska Resources Library & Information Services | reference@arlis.org | UAA Library Building | Phone: (907) 272-7547 Restoring the resources injured by the Exxon Valdez oil spill and understanding environmental change in the Northern Gulf of Alaska. The Exxon Valdez, 25 Years After — FBI The Exxon Valdez, 25 Years After FBI Continues to Support Environmental Crime Enforcement Partners Twenty-five years after the massive Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska, the FBI continues to support its partners on environmental crime cases. (NOAA photo) On March 24, 1989—25 years ago today—the massive oil tanker Exxon Valdez ran aground on Bligh Reef in Alaska’s Prince William Sound.

The ship was outbound from Port Valdez and carried 53 million gallons of crude oil; an estimated 11 million gallons spilled into the Gulf of Alaska. The harm caused by the spill was extensive. Tens of thousands of animals died, generations of fish and other marine life were compromised, the lives of residents were greatly disrupted, and the ongoing effects of this catastrophe continue today. Clean-up costs were astronomical. Particularly since the 1970s amid growing concerns about the environment, a series of federal laws have been added to the government’s authority to investigate abuses of our shared environment, looking for criminal activity that threatens lives and health. In the case of the Exxon Valdez—and in most environmental crime cases at the time—the FBI worked closely with state and other federal agencies to determine what happened, how it happened, and if criminally negligent behavior was involved. In February 1990, after an extensive investigation into the incident, the Department of Justice brought a multi-count criminal indictment against Exxon Corporation and its shipping subsidiary for violations of the Clean Water Act, the Refuse Act, and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (this particular law had been part of the FBI’s jurisdiction since the 1920s), among others.

And in October 1991, the U.S. District Court in Anchorage accepted guilty pleas by Exxon and approved a settlement involving a criminal plea agreement and restitution. Exxon paid a hefty fine; however, a portion of it was returned due to the company’s support of clean-up efforts. The court also approved a civil settlement resolving claims with the federal government and Alaska for clean-up costs and damage to natural resources—the civil penalties were even higher than the criminal fines. Fast Forward: The FBI’s Role Today In 2014, with the Bureau’s overriding focus on preventing terrorist attacks—along with efforts to address cyber crimes and emerging national security and criminal threats—our environmental role is largely a supporting one, assisting our partners at the Environmental Protection Agency, the Coast Guard, and state and local agencies. But our focus on criminal activity that threatens lives remains the same.

Working with other agencies, the FBI generally focuses on significant environmental crime cases in the following areas: Knowing endangerment, where the crime puts people in danger; Catastrophic events, like huge oil spills or explosions; Patterned flagrant violators, which include companies that shrug off their fines; Government abuse and public corruption, because the government has to obey the laws, too; and Organized crime, which often involves waste and illegal dumping. The Bureau brings unique tools to the investigative table—including sophisticated techniques like court-authorized electronic surveillance, undercover operations, and informants—that we’ve used successfully for years against organized crime groups, drug traffickers, financial crime fraudsters, and the like. And we continue to assist our partners in bringing the most egregious violators to justice. For information on the Department of Justice’s overall efforts to go after abusers of the nation’s civil and criminal pollution-control laws, visit its Environmental and Natural Resources Division website .

Question: The oil tanker Exxon Valdes ran aground off which US state in 1989?
Answer: Alaska