Exxon Valdez disaster was 10 years ago, but how much has changed?
The Guardian, Monday July 12, 1999
Michael Sean Gillard, Andrew Rowell and Melissa Jones
Just past midnight on Good Friday 1989, disaster struck in the icy waters of Prince William Sound. The Exxon Valdez, a tanker the size of three football pitches, crashed onto a reef spewing millions of gallons of heavy crude.
Within days, 1,500 miles of coast were polluted, leaving a trail of dying oil-drenched wildlife. Hundreds of thousands of birds were killed, and thousands of sea otters died alongside harbour seals, whales and brown bears.
Overnight the livelihood of thousands of fishermen disappeared. Only 7% of the 11m gallon spill was re covered. A decade on, Alaska still counts the cost.
Only two of 28 species, the bald eagle and the river otter, have recovered. Eight other species, among them killer whales, have made almost no progress, according to the Oil Spill Trustee Council. Studies show that the impact on Alaskans was equally devastating. Unemployment, alcoholism, drug and suicide rates increased, and some native communities disintegrated. The clean-up took three years, but oil still pollutes Prince William Sound. "There is evidence everywhere," says Stan Stephens, former president of an influential citizens' watchdog. "Ashore I can show you places where there's almost fresh oil under the gravel." Some locals believe the actual amount spilled was more than double official estimates, and are using the courts to uncover the true amount.
The companies responsible, Exxon, BP, Arco, Mobil and others owning Alyeska, had assured Alaskans it would never happen. But in 1990 the state Oil Spill Commission concluded that they and the government had been complacent.
"Privatisation, self regulation and neglect" were also identified as root causes. According to the commission, "the disaster could have been prevented by simple adherence to the original rules" but "concern for profits _ obliterated concern for safe operations".
Since1984, a local regulator, Dan Lawn, had repeatedly warned about missing oil spill response equipment and staff cuts at the Valdez Marine Terminal.
A Democrat congressman, George Miller, later testified that Alyeska and its owners "knew that they could not effectively respond to a spill" and "had secretly decided [they] would not", contrary to what was said in their contingency plan.
Exxon, known in Britain as Esso, initially pleaded guilty to causing the spill, and settled criminal and civil suits by the Alaskan and US governments. It agreed to pay $1bn, some of which has gone into restoration and scientific study.
Alyeska made a $129m out of court settlement with the state and the victims. In 1994, a jury ordered Exxon to pay $5bn punitive dam ages to 14,000 fishermen, native Alaskans, and businessmen. Nine years later it is still appealing against the "unfair" judgement.
Exxon has renamed the Exxon Valdez as the Sea River Mediterranean, and is trying to return the banned tanker to its Alaskan fleet.
Meanwhile, in Anchorage its former captain, Joseph Hazelwood, last month finally began 1,000 hours of community service after an eight year appeal against his 1990 conviction for negligence. And BP is lobbying intensely to enter the Arctic Natural Wildlife Refuge - known as the American Serengeti - next to its depleting North Slope oil fields
The Guardian, Saturday September 25, 1999
Safety of Alaskan oil line 'in question', report finds Michael Sean Gillard, Melissa Jones and Andrew Rowell
The safety of the ageing Alaskan oil pipeline owned mainly by BP Amoco is "in question", an internal report has found.
The report, presented this week to the US congress and government regulators, is a response to and confirmation of many allegations made by six Alyeska whistleblowers which the Guardian investigated and published last July.
The whistleblowers had written to BP Amoco chief executive SirJohn Browne warning of an "imminent threat" to human life and the environment from irresponsible oil operations in Alaska - the scene 10 years ago of the Exxon Valdez catastrophe.
Their letter contained evidence of falsified safety and inspection records and persistent violations of government laws to protect the fragile Alaskan environment.
The whistleblowers called for an "independent audit". Alyeska, the company which manages the 800 mile pipeline for an oil consortium including Exxon and Mobil, rejected this claiming it was already heavily regulated. Instead it commissioned consultants to investigate.
In the report Alyeska also admits that the quality programme, integral to pipeline safety, has not been consistently implemented.
There were "numerous examples" where problems had resulted in either "no action or untimely corrective actions".
The whistleblowers' concerns were known to senior executives but overlooked. The organisation of crucial engineering design drawings is "weak", which prevents employees doing their job safely and efficiently.
The report appeared in the same week that BP was fined after pleading guilty to dumping toxic waste in Alaska.
BP did not immediately inform the regulator of its drilling contractor's actions and must now pay US$22m (£14m) in settlement and reparations.
Alyeska president, Bob Malone, a BP executive, told the Guardian: "I am not satisfied with the amount of time that it has taken to address issues. We're making improvements, but the most difficult task I have is changing the culture."
The Guardian has learned that a new whistleblower yesterday wrote to the US congress and the vice president, Al Gore, outlining the harassment by a senior executive when she raised "ethical concerns" about alleged improper tax practices and mismanagement of the employees' saving and investment plan.
Alyeska has also been made aware of the allegations.
Andy Rowell