exxon valdez oil spill case study ppt

Jump to navigation

Official websites use .gov

A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure websites use HTTPS

A small lock or https:// means you’ve safely connected to a .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Search form

• Chemical Spills
• Significant Incidents
• Historic Shipwrecks
• Assessment Tools
• Marine Debris
• Disaster Response Center
• Maps and Data
• Publications
• Infographics

Lessons Learned From the Exxon Valdez Spill

• Monitoring the Sound
• Remaining Oil
• Ecological Recovery
• Spill Response

The ultimate goal for the NOAA Prince William Sound Monitoring Program has always been to improve the way we respond to oil spills in a complex environment like Alaska's Prince William Sound.

Our goal is to use science to better understand physical and biological recovery and then apply the lessons to spill response. The insights we gain relate to both the process of environmental monitoring itself and impacts caused by the spill and cleanup. So, what have we learned?

Science Alongside Cleanup

First, it is difficult to assess the impacts from a disturbance—even a major one like the Exxon Valdez spill—in a dynamic system like Prince William Sound. The inherently high degree of natural variability found in such systems can limit or preclude the use of standard or traditional statistical methods.

So-called "set-aside sites," areas that were oiled but intentionally left uncleaned, have been critical to the NOAA monitoring program's ability to determine impacts due to oiling alone and those due to cleanup. During an oil spill, there are compelling reasons to clean up all oil; however, to monitor the recovery of shorelines, set-aside sites are key considerations. We recommend that the concept be discussed during oil spill contingency planning and again during the inevitable spill events.

Effects of the Cleanup

High-pressure, hot-water washing of shorelines , while effective at removing stranded oil, can damage plants and animals in the treated zone directly and indirectly, short-term and long-term. This might seem obvious, but before the Exxon Valdez spill there was almost no real documentation of these impacts.

We now know the negative effects of agressive shoreline cleanup methods like high-pressure, hot-water washing. However, this does not mean we would eliminate its use in the future. Hopefully, with the guidance of monitoring efforts like this one, we can employ the method in a wiser fashion.

Impacts on Habitat

Physical characteristics of the habitat determine the makeup of biological communities. Therefore, altering the physical features of a beach or shoreline can significantly affect the recovery of impacted plants or animals. Physical recovery and stabilization of a site are necessary for biological recovery.

For example, when the beach at Eleanor Island (one of our study sites) was cleaned, its silty sediments were noticeably washed out into the water. We believe that many, if not most, of the animals that normally live in this kind of beach require a certain mix of fine-grained sediments. Many would not return until the beach sediments had stabilized.

If there is a proverbial silver lining to the Exxon Valdez oil spill, it must include the fact that the incident and its aftermath represented a remarkable opportunity to learn from misfortune . Our research is but one example of the many scientific investigations in Prince William Sound that should help us to understand the environment, how it responds to oil spills and cleanup, and how we can facilitate the process of recovery—however you may choose to define that term.

More Information about the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill

The Legacy of the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill: Learn how the Exxon Valdez spill, while an unfortunate incident, provided a necessary impetus to reexamine the state of oil spill prevention, response, and cleanup.

Podcast: Exxon Valdez Oil Spill 20th Anniversary Special [MP3, 11 MB, 12 minutes]: NOAA's National Ocean Service talks with OR&R's senior scientist, Dr. Alan Mearns, who was involved in the initial spill response for the Exxon Valdez accident. Dr. Mearns has spent years leading a project that continues to monitor the long-term impact of the huge oil spill. (Making Waves Episode 20, March 13, 2009)

Prince William's Oily Mess: A Tale of Recovery: Read a case study of the Exxon Valdez spill, accompanied by a set of supporting resources, including student and teacher guides, an interactive quiz, an exercise with real data, and an interview with an OR&R scientist.

Exxon Valdez Oil Spill 20 Years Later: A NOS Scientist's Perspective [PDF, 268 KB]: Twenty years after the Exxon Valdez oil spill, Alan Mearns, a senior staff scientist with the Office of Response and Restoration, talks about what it was like to be involved in the initial cleanup and how different it is responding to oil spills today.

Oil Spill Recovery Institute (OSRI): Established by Congress in response to the Exxon Valdez spill, OSRI works to identify and develop the best available techniques, equipment, and materials for responding to oil spills in the Arctic and sub-Arctic marine environment.

Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council: This partnership was formed to oversee ecosystem restoration in Prince William Sound. Learn more about the Exxon Valdez spill, its impacts, and restoration and research efforts.

Prince William Sound Regional Citizens' Advisory Council: An independent non-profit organization, the Citizens' Advisory Council works to reduce pollution from crude oil transportation through Prince William Sound and the Gulf of Alaska.

Go back to the Exxon Valdez oil spill overview page.

• Response Tools
• Argo Merchant Oil Spill
• Athos I Oil Spill on the Delaware River
• Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill
• Exxon Valdez Oil Spill
• Hurricanes Katrina and Rita
• Refugio State Beach Oil Spill Near Santa Barbara, California
• Environmental Response Management Application (ERMA)
• Hurricane Response
• Assessment and Restoration
• Oil Spills and Ship Groundings
• Injured Animals and Habitat
• Response Techniques
• Self-Study Resources

• History & Society
• Science & Tech
• Biographies
• Animals & Nature
• Geography & Travel
• Arts & Culture
• Games & Quizzes
• On This Day
• One Good Fact
• New Articles
• Lifestyles & Social Issues
• Philosophy & Religion
• Politics, Law & Government
• World History
• Health & Medicine
• Browse Biographies
• Birds, Reptiles & Other Vertebrates
• Bugs, Mollusks & Other Invertebrates
• Environment
• Fossils & Geologic Time
• Entertainment & Pop Culture
• Sports & Recreation
• Visual Arts
• Demystified
• Image Galleries
• Infographics
• Top Questions
• Britannica Kids
• Saving Earth
• Space Next 50
• Student Center

Exxon Valdez oil spill

Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.

• Academia - The Social and Political Meaning of the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill
• BBC News - Examining the legacy of the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill
• PBS - The 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill, how we see climate change then and now
• United States Environmental Protection Agency - Exxon Valdez Spill Profile
• The Guardian - Exxon Valdez: what lessons have we learned from the 1989 oil spill disaster?
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - Exxon Valdez

Recent News

Exxon Valdez oil spill , massive oil spill that occurred on March 24, 1989, in Prince William Sound , an inlet in the Gulf of Alaska , Alaska , U.S. The incident happened after an Exxon Corporation tanker, the Exxon Valdez , ran aground on Bligh Reef during a voyage from Valdez , Alaska, to California. Delayed efforts to contain the spill and naturally strong winds and waves dispersed nearly 11,000,000 gallons (41,640 kilolitres) of North Slope crude oil across the sound. The spill eventually polluted 1,300 miles (2,092 kilometres) of indented shoreline, as well as adjacent waters, as far south as the southern end of Shelikof Strait between Kodiak Island and the Alaska Peninsula . Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens emerged as a strong proponent of securing federal funds to pay for the damage. Thousands of workers and volunteers helped to clean up after the oil spill, and Exxon provided $2.1 billion in funding. Despite these cleanup efforts, the spill exterminated much native wildlife, including salmon , herring , sea otters, bald eagles, and killer whales.

The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) eventually assigned most of the blame for the oil spill to Exxon , citing its incompetent and overworked crew. The board also faulted the U.S. Coast Guard for an inadequate system of traffic regulation. After evidence suggested that Joseph J. Hazelwood, the ship’s captain, had been drinking before the accident, Exxon terminated his employment. In 1990 the U.S. Congress passed the Oil Pollution Act in direct response to the Exxon Valdez accident. Among other measures, the act created procedures for responding to future oil spills, established the legal liabilities of responsible parties, and set a schedule for banning single-hulled tankers from U.S. waters by 2015.

The Exxon Valdez itself was repaired and returned to service but was legally prohibited by a clause in the Oil Pollution Act from ever reentering Prince William Sound. Recommissioned the Exxon Mediterranean , it worked the Mediterranean Sea until single-hulled vessels were banned from European waters. In 2008 it was converted by a Hong Kong company to an ore carrier, and in 2012, under the name Oriental Nicety , it was sold for scrapping in Alang, India.

• History Classics
• Your Profile
• Find History on Facebook (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Twitter (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on YouTube (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Instagram (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on TikTok (Opens in a new window)
• This Day In History
• History Podcasts
• History Vault

Exxon Valdez Oil Spill

By: History.com Editors

Updated: March 23, 2021 | Original: March 9, 2018

The Exxon Valdez oil spill was a manmade disaster that occurred when Exxon Valdez , an oil tanker owned by the Exxon Shipping Company, spilled 11 million gallons of crude oil into Alaska’s Prince William Sound on March 24, 1989. It was the worst oil spill in U.S. history until the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in 2010. The Exxon Valdez oil slick covered 1,300 miles of coastline and killed hundreds of thousands of seabirds, otters, seals and whales. Nearly 30 years later, pockets of crude oil remain in some locations. After the spill, Exxon Valdez returned to service under a different name, operating for more than two decades as an oil tanker and ore carrier.

On the evening of March 23, 1989, Exxon Valdez left the port of Valdez, Alaska , bound for Long Beach, California , with 53 million gallons of Prudhoe Bay crude oil onboard.

At four minutes after midnight on March 24, the ship struck Bligh Reef, a well-known navigation hazard in Alaska’s Prince William Sound.

The impact of the collision tore open the ship’s hull, causing some 11 million gallons of crude oil to spill into the water.

At the time, it was the largest single oil spill in U.S. waters. Initial attempts to contain the oil failed, and in the months that followed, the oil slick spread, eventually covering about 1,300 miles of coastline.

Investigators later learned that Joseph Hazelwood, the captain of Exxon Valdez , had been drinking at the time and had allowed an unlicensed third mate to steer the massive ship.

In March 1990, Hazelwood was acquitted of felony charges. He was convicted of a single charge of misdemeanor negligence, fined $50,000, and ordered to perform 1,000 hours of community service.

Oil Spill Cleanup

In the months after the Exxon Valdez oil spill, Exxon employees, federal responders and more than 11,000 Alaska residents worked to clean up the oil spill.

Exxon payed about $2 billion in cleanup costs and $1.8 billion for habitat restoration and personal damages related to the spill.

Cleanup workers skimmed oil from the water’s surface, sprayed oil dispersant chemicals in the water and on shore, washed oiled beaches with hot water and rescued and cleaned animals trapped in oil.

Environmental officials purposefully left some areas of shoreline untreated so they could study the effect of cleanup measures, some of which were unproven at the time. They later found that aggressive washing with high-pressure, hot water hoses was effective in removing oil, but did even more ecological damage by killing the remaining plants and animals in the process.

One of those areas that was oiled but never cleaned is a large shoreline boulder called Mearn’s Rock. Scientists have returned to Mearn’s Rock every summer since the spill to photograph the plants and small critters growing on it. They found that many of the mussels, barnacles and various seaweeds growing on the rock before the spill returned to normal levels about three to four years after the spill.

Environmental And Economic Impacts

Prince William Sound had been a pristine wilderness before the spill. The Exxon Valdez disaster dramatically changed all of that, taking a major toll on wildlife. It killed an estimated 250,000 sea birds, 3,000 otters, 300 seals, 250 bald eagles and 22 killer whales.

The oil spill also may have played a role in the collapse of salmon and herring fisheries in Prince William Sound in the early 1990s. Fishermen went bankrupt, and the economies of small shoreline towns, including Valdez and Cordova, suffered in the following years.

Some reports estimated the total economic loss from the Exxon Valdez oil spill to be as much as $2.8 billion.

A 2001 study found oil contamination remaining at more than half of the 91 beach sites tested in Prince William Sound.

The spill had killed an estimated 40 percent of all sea otters living in the Sound. The sea otter population didn’t recover to its pre-spill levels until 2014, twenty-five years after the spill.

Stocks of herring, once a lucrative source of income for Prince William Sound fisherman, have never fully rebounded.

READ MORE:  Water and Air Pollution

Oil Pollution Act of 1990

In the wake of the Exxon Valdez oil spill, the U.S. Congress passed the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, which President George H.W. Bush signed into law that year.

The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 increased penalties for companies responsible for oil spills and required that all oil tankers in United States waters have a double hull.

Exxon Valdez was a single-hulled tanker; a double-hull design, by making it less likely that a collision would have spilled oil, might have prevented the Exxon Valdez disaster.

Fate of Exxon Valdez

The ship, Exxon Valdez —first commissioned in 1986—was repaired and returned to service a year after the spill in a different ocean and under a different name.

The single-hulled ship could no longer transport oil in U.S. waters, due to the new regulations. The ship began running oil transport routes in Europe, where single-hulled oil tankers were still allowed. There it was renamed the Exxon Mediterranean , then the SeaRiver Mediterranean and finally the S/R Mediterranean.

In 2002, the European Union banned single-hulled tankers and the former Exxon Valdez moved to Asian waters.

Exxon sold the infamous tanker in 2008 to a Hong Kong-based shipping company. The company converted the old oil tanker to an ore carrier, renaming it the Dong Feng Ocean . In 2010, the star-crossed ship collided with another bulk carrier in the Yellow Sea and was once again severely damaged.

The ship was renamed once more after the collision, becoming the Oriental Nicety . The Oriental Nicety was sold for scrap to an Indian company and dismantled in 2012.

Exxon Valdez laid to rest; Nature . The never-ending history of life on a rock; NOAA . Economic impacts of the spill; Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council .

Sign up for Inside History

Get HISTORY’s most fascinating stories delivered to your inbox three times a week.

By submitting your information, you agree to receive emails from HISTORY and A+E Networks. You can opt out at any time. You must be 16 years or older and a resident of the United States.

More details : Privacy Notice | Terms of Use | Contact Us

An official website of the United States government

Here’s how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock A locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

JavaScript appears to be disabled on this computer. Please click here to see any active alerts .

Exxon Valdez Spill Profile

On March 24, 1989, shortly after midnight, the oil tanker Exxon Valdez struck Bligh Reef in Prince William Sound, Alaska, spilling more than 11 million gallons of crude oil. The spill was the largest in U.S. history and tested the abilities of local, national, and industrial organizations to prepare for, and respond to, a disaster of such magnitude. Many factors complicated the cleanup efforts following the spill. The size of the spill and its remote location, accessible only by helicopter and boat, made government and industry efforts difficult and tested existing plans for dealing with such an event.

The spill posed threats to the delicate food chain that supports Prince William Sound's commercial fishing industry. Also in danger were ten million migratory shore birds and waterfowl, hundreds of sea otters, dozens of other species, such as harbor porpoises and sea lions, and several varieties of whales.

Since the incident occurred in open navigable waters, the U.S. Coast Guard's On-Scene Coordinator had authority for all activities related to the cleanup effort. His first action was to immediately close the Port of Valdez to all traffic. A U.S. Coast Guard at USCG investigator, along with a representative from the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, visited the scene of the incident to assess the damage. By noon on Friday, March 25, the Alaska Regional Response Team was brought together by teleconference, and the National Response Team was activated soon thereafter.

Alyeska, the association that represents seven oil companies who operate in Valdez, including Exxon, first assumed responsibility for the cleanup, in accordance with the area's contingency planning. Alyeska opened an emergency communications center in Valdez shortly after the spill was reported and set up a second operations center in Anchorage, Alaska.

The Coast Guard quickly expanded its presence on the scene, and personnel from other Federal agencies also arrived to help. EPA specialists in the use of experimental bioremediation technologies assisted in the spill cleanup and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration at NOAA was involved in providing weather forecasts for Prince William Sound, allowing the cleanup team to adapt their methods to changing weather conditions. Specialists from the Hubbs Marine Institute in San Diego, California, set up a facility to clean oil from otters, and the International Bird Research Center of Berkeley, California, established a center to clean and rehabilitate oiled waterfowl.

Three methods were tried in the effort to clean up the spill:

• Mechanical Cleanup
• Chemical Dispersants

A trial burn was conducted during the early stages of the spill. A fire-resistant boom was placed on tow lines, and two ends of the boom were each attached to a ship. The two ships with the boom between them moved slowly throughout the main portion of the slick until the boom was full of oil. The two ships then towed the boom away from the slick and the oil was ignited. The fire did not endanger the main slick or the Exxon Valdez because of the distance separating them. Because of unfavorable weather, however, no additional burning was attempted in this cleanup effort.

Shortly after the spill, mechanical cleanup was started using booms and skimmers . However, skimmers were not readily available during the first 24 hours following the spill. Thick oil and heavy kelp tended to clog the equipment. Repairs to damaged skimmers were time consuming. Transferring oil from temporary storage vessels into more permanent containers was also difficult because of the oil's weight and thickness. Continued bad weather slowed down the recovery efforts.

In addition, a trial application of dispersants was performed. The use of dispersants proved to be controversial. Alyeska had less than 4,000 gallons of dispersant available in its terminal in Valdez, and no application equipment or aircraft. A private company applied dispersants on March 24, with a helicopter and dispersant bucket. Because there was not enough wave action to mix the dispersant with the oil in the water, the Coast Guard representatives at the site concluded that the dispersants were not working and so their use was discontinued.

Efforts to save sensitive areas were begun early in the cleanup. Sensitive environments were identified, defined according to degree of cleanup, and then ranked for their priority for cleanup. Seal pupping locations and fish hatcheries were given the highest importance, and for these areas special cleaning techniques were approved. Despite the identification of sensitive areas and the rapid start-up of shoreline cleaning, however, wildlife rescue was slow. Adequate resources for this task did not reach the accident scene quickly enough. Through direct contact with oil or because of a loss of food resources, many birds and mammals died.

In the aftermath of the Exxon Valdez incident, Congress passed the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, which required the Coast Guard to strengthen its regulations on oil tank vessels and oil tank owners and operators. Today, tank hulls provide better protection against spills resulting from a similar accident, and communications between vessel captains and vessel traffic centers have improved to make for safer sailing.

For more information, please see Exxon Valdez Oil Spill .

• Emergency Response Home
• Emergency Response at EPA
• Current and Past Responses
• Response Tools
• Response Partners
• Emergency Operations Center
• Consequence Management Advisory Team
• Emergency Management Highlights

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Without cookies your experience may not be seamless.

• Ethics & the Environment

Lessons from the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill: A Case Study in Retributive and Corrective Justice for Harm to the Environment

• James Liszka
• Indiana University Press
• Volume 15, Number 2, Fall 2010
• 10.2979/ete.2010.15.2.1
• View Citation

Additional Information

The settlements surrounding the Exxon Valdez oil spill prove to be an interesting case of retributive and corrective justice in regard to damage to the ecology of the commons, particularly in light of the recent Deepwater Horizon spill in the Gulf of Mexico. After reviewing the harm done to the ecology of Prince William Sound by the spill, and an account of Exxon Corporation’s responsibility, I examine the details of the litigation, particularly the Supreme Court decision in this matter. In the early settlement, there is a clear disproportion between damage awards to plaintiffs representing the current economic users of Prince William Sound versus the trustees for the Sound’s commons. I argue that the disproportion reveals not only a thoroughly economic understanding of ecological commons, but bias in the treatment of its current economic users, as opposed to an understanding of such ecologies as true commons shared over generations. I argue that such biases fail reasonable moral tests and do not stand up to common principles of retributive justice. I end by suggesting a legal maneuver to correct such tendencies.

Project MUSE Mission

Project MUSE promotes the creation and dissemination of essential humanities and social science resources through collaboration with libraries, publishers, and scholars worldwide. Forged from a partnership between a university press and a library, Project MUSE is a trusted part of the academic and scholarly community it serves.

2715 North Charles Street Baltimore, Maryland, USA 21218

+1 (410) 516-6989 [email protected]

©2024 Project MUSE. Produced by Johns Hopkins University Press in collaboration with The Sheridan Libraries.

Now and Always, The Trusted Content Your Research Requires

Built on the Johns Hopkins University Campus

The Exxon Valdez Oil Spill: A Legal Battle for the Environment

Most would agree that environmental disasters like oil spills can cause devastating harm.

This article chronicles the legal battle following the catastrophic 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska's Prince William Sound, analyzing its enduring environmental impacts and the regulatory changes it inspired.

You'll learn about the accident itself, the extensive environmental damage to marine ecosystems, the complex lawsuits against Exxon, the massive cleanup effort, the landmark regulations enacted in response, and the spill's persistent effects that still linger decades later as a sobering reminder of the fragility of nature.

Unveiling the Exxon Valdez Environmental Catastrophe

On March 24, 1989, the Exxon Valdez oil tanker struck Bligh Reef in Alaska's Prince William Sound, rupturing its hull and spilling over 250,000 barrels of crude oil into the pristine waters. It was one of the worst environmental disasters in US history.

How Did the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Happen?

The Exxon Valdez, helmed by Captain Joseph Hazelwood, was sailing out of Valdez, Alaska with a full load of crude oil when it ran aground on Bligh Reef around midnight. Though a designated shipping lane existed to avoid the reef, the tanker had strayed significantly outside the channel. Moreover, evidence suggests Hazelwood was impaired at the time of the accident.

Immediate Environmental Devastation in Prince William Sound

The spilled crude oil quickly spread across the sound and along the coastline, covering an area of over 11,000 square kilometers. The oil coated beaches, killed hundreds of thousands of seabirds, sea otters and seals. Fish eggs and shoreline habitats were smothered, devastating local fisheries and ecosystems that support herring, salmon and other marine life.

Exxon's Initial Clean Up Efforts

Exxon brought in crews and equipment to try containing and cleaning up the spill. However, the scale of the disaster and challenging terrain made efforts extremely difficult. Use of dispersants was controversial and only marginally effective. Exxon faced criticism for an inadequate response and delays in mobilizing resources to mitigate environmental impacts.

How did the Exxon Valdez oil spill affect the environment?

The Exxon Valdez oil spill released nearly 11 million gallons of crude oil into Alaska's Prince William Sound in 1989, with devastating impacts on the local marine environment that have persisted for decades.

The oil initially killed hundreds of thousands of seabirds, sea otters, seals, bald eagles and over a billion salmon and herring eggs. While wildlife populations have rebounded, several species have still not fully recovered over 30 years later.

The spill oiled more than 1,300 miles of shoreline in the sound and nearby areas. Cleanup efforts recovered only about 14% of the spilled oil. The unrecovered oil broke down naturally over time, but residues can still be found buried in some shoreline sediments today.

Oil from the spill permeated into gravel beaches and remained trapped in the subsurface layers of sediment in the intertidal zones. This subsurface oil is released slowly over time, exposing new generations of wildlife to the toxins.

Studies by federal agencies have found that oil exposure has led to long-term negative impacts on the health and productivity of species such as sea otters and harlequin ducks in the spill region. Herring populations collapsed four years after the spill and have still not recovered, devastating fishing communities.

The spill thus continues to demonstrate the severe long-term ecological impacts that can result from a single oil spill and has led to stricter regulations aimed at preventing future disasters.

What were the legal consequences of the Exxon Valdez oil spill?

The Exxon Valdez oil spill resulted in extensive litigation and legal consequences. Exxon Shipping Company and its captain Joseph Hazelwood faced criminal charges, civil penalties, and punitive damages.

Key legal consequences included:

Exxon pleaded guilty to criminal charges and agreed to pay $150 million in fines and restitution, at the time the largest fine ever imposed for an environmental crime. $125 million of this fine was later forgiven by the court.

Multiple civil lawsuits were filed against Exxon by federal and state agencies, Alaska Native corporations, fishermen, and other affected parties. Settlements totaling over $1 billion were reached.

A class action lawsuit brought by commercial fishermen impacted by the spill resulted in a $5 billion punitive damages award against Exxon in 1994. This was later reduced on appeals to $507.5 million by the Supreme Court in 2008.

The spill was a catalyst for new legislation such as the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 which strengthened prevention and response measures for oil spills. It mandated double hulls on new oil tankers among other provisions.

In summary, Exxon faced substantial criminal fines, civil penalties, lawsuit settlements, and punitive damages for the economic and environmental impacts from the Exxon Valdez spill. The legal consequences forced improved practices in the oil industry while also providing some compensation to those affected.

Who sued Exxon Valdez oil spill?

Both the United States Government and the State of Alaska sued Exxon for environmental damage from the Exxon Valdez oil spill. The litigation was settled through consent decrees, under which Exxon agreed to pay $900 million over 10 years for environmental restoration.

Key parties in the lawsuits:

• United States Government - Sued Exxon on behalf of federal agencies including the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for environmental damage and cleanup costs.
• State of Alaska - Sued Exxon on behalf of the state government for damage to natural resources and lost tax revenue.
• Exxon Shipping Company and Exxon Mobil Corporation - The defendants in the lawsuits, owners of the Exxon Valdez tanker.

The consent decrees aimed to fund habitat protection and restoration of injured natural resources such as salmon, sea otters, seals, seabirds and more. The payments supported environmental research by government agencies to assess long-term impacts.

While impactful, many still felt the settlement was insufficient for the scale of ecological harm. Nonetheless it set an important legal precedent for holding companies financially accountable for environmental disasters.

sbb-itb-e93bf99

What are two new regulations that came about because of the exxon valdez oil spill.

The two major regulations that were implemented after the Exxon Valdez oil spill disaster in 1989 were:

Oil Pollution Act of 1990 : This federal law required all oil tankers operating in U.S. waters to have double hulls, unlike the single-hulled Exxon Valdez. Double hulls provide an extra layer of protection to help prevent oil spills. The law also increased penalties for organizations responsible for oil spills.

International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) : In response to the Exxon Valdez spill, the International Maritime Organization implemented a new annex to the MARPOL convention. The new annex mandated double hull requirements for oil tankers on an international level.

In summary, the Exxon Valdez oil spill led to major changes in regulations to improve oil tanker safety and prevent environmental disasters through structural requirements like double hulls. It also resulted in increased financial penalties to deter negligence by shipping organizations. These regulatory changes have aimed to reduce the likelihood and impact of massive oil spills since the devastation in Alaska.

Chronicle of a Legal Battle: The Exxon Valdez Case Study

The Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska's Prince William Sound on March 24, 1989 was one of the worst environmental disasters in US history. Over 11 million gallons of crude oil spilled into the sound after the Exxon Valdez tanker ran aground on Bligh Reef. The spill polluted over 1,300 miles of coastline and killed hundreds of thousands of seabirds and marine animals.

In the aftermath, Exxon faced over 150 lawsuits from federal and state agencies, seeking damages for injury to natural resources and lost recreational use. This initiated a complex legal battle spanning over 20 years. Key events included:

Navigating the Legal Aftermath of an Environmental Disaster

In 1991, Exxon settled federal and state claims by establishing a $900 million civil settlement fund to pay for restoring injured resources and human uses. This was administered by the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council (EVOSTC).

In 1994, an Anchorage jury awarded $5 billion in punitive damages to Alaska Natives, fishermen, and landowners in the Exxon Valdez v. Baker case. This was reduced over appeals down to $507.5 million by the Supreme Court in 2008.

The Creation of the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council

The EVOSTC was formed in 1991 to oversee restoration efforts using funds from the $900 million civil settlement. Members include state and federal agencies committed to restoring the injured ecosystem and economies.

Over 65 restoration projects have been funded to monitor recovery, protect habitat, prevent invasive species, and more. Efforts continue 30 years later to restore and study impacted species like herring and salmon.

Strengthening Marine Pollution Laws: The Oil Pollution Act of 1990

The spill exposed gaps in regulations, leading the US Congress to pass sweeping reforms in the Oil Pollution Act (OPA 90).

Key OPA 90 provisions mandated double hulls for vessels, increased liability limits, and required detailed response plans to prevent and prepare for spills.

The OPA 90 established the framework for modern marine pollution laws, increasing government and industry readiness to prevent environmental disasters.

The Exxon Valdez spill left a lasting impact through destroyed habitat, injured ecosystems, and economic harm. But it also drove landmark legal settlements and new environmental protections that continue shaping marine transportation laws today.

Decades Later: The Long-Term Effects of the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill

Persistent environmental impacts on marine life.

The Exxon Valdez oil spill had devastating effects on marine life that persist decades later. Crude oil contaminated over 1,300 miles of shoreline in Prince William Sound, Alaska, severely damaging habitat and killing countless animals.

Populations of herring and sea otters, in particular, have struggled to recover. Herring stocks crashed in 1993 and have remained low ever since. Researchers believe oil exposure impaired reproduction and increased disease susceptibility. Sea otters suffered high mortality rates immediately after the spill. Despite three decades of recovery efforts, sea otter populations remain below pre-spill numbers in oiled areas.

The spill also harmed bird and mammal species like cormorants, seals, and sea lions. While some species have rebounded, lingering oil prevents full recovery. Over 30 years later, many species and ecosystems still bear scars from the environmental disaster.

The Hurdles in Environmental Remediation

Cleaning up the Exxon Valdez oil spill and restoring affected areas has proven extremely challenging. Factors like the region's remote location, severe weather, and widespread contamination have slowed remediation efforts.

Despite extensive cleanup initiatives, over 20 acres of shoreline are still contaminated with oil. Natural weathering and degradation processes are very slow in the region's cold climate. The remaining oil persists in forms difficult to detect and remove.

Full restoration to pre-spill conditions remains elusive. Herring embryo development is impaired at extremely low, hard-to-detect oil concentrations. Such subtle yet toxic oil remnants prevent ecosystems from fully rebounding.

Reflecting on Lessons from the Exxon Valdez Spill

The Exxon Valdez disaster highlighted the cataclysmic harm oil spills pose to marine environments. It triggered sweeping reforms like the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 requiring double hulls on oil tankers. Additionally, it underscored the importance of prevention and spill readiness.

Yet while much progress has occurred, more work remains. Lingering damage in Prince William Sound serves as a sobering reminder that even small oil amounts can have enduring impacts. Continued research and policy efforts focused on prevention, response readiness, and habitat protection are essential to prevent similar environmental tragedies.

Conclusion: The Enduring Legacy of the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill

Encapsulating the exxon valdez disaster.

The Exxon Valdez oil spill in 1989 was one of the worst environmental disasters in history. An Exxon oil tanker struck a reef in Alaska's Prince William Sound, spilling over 11 million gallons of crude oil. The oil polluted over 1,300 miles of coastline and killed hundreds of thousands of seabirds, seals, otters and fish.

Exxon faced years of litigation over the spill. They were ordered to pay $5 billion in punitive damages, reduced to $507 million on appeals. The spill led to new regulations like double-hull tankers and better response preparedness.

Protective Measures for the Future of Prince William Sound

Groups like the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council continue to monitor the health of the spill region. Although species like salmon and herring have recovered, oil still lingers in some areas. Conservation efforts promote sustainable fishing, tourism and development policies to protect Prince William Sound.

Reflections on a Legal and Environmental Milestone

The Exxon Valdez disaster fundamentally transformed how we view environmental responsibility. It led to landmark regulations holding companies financially liable for spill damages. And it serves as a sobering reminder that human carelessness can have devastating impacts on ecosystems we depend upon. The spill’s legal and ecological impacts endure over 30 years later.

Related posts

• The Trial of Ted Stevens: Political Corruption in Alaska
• The Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Trial: Environmental Catastrophe in Court
• Enron Scandal: The Fall of Corporate Giants in Court

The Freedom of Information Act Amendments: Law Explained

Compos Mentis: Legal Concept Explained

Hedge Fund Strategies: Finance Explained

Unlock the talent your business deserves.

Hire Accounting and Finance Professionals from South America.

• Start Interviewing For Free

Royal Navy Ship HMS Trent Seizes Cocaine Worth £40 Million In The Caribbean Sea

Seafarers Hospital Society Launches Pilot Project To Support Women At Sea

Hydrocell Launches The First Hydrogen-Powered Boat

Indian Port Workers Call Off Strike After Agreeing To New Wage Settlement

The Complete Story Of The Exxon Valdez Oil Spill

It is indisputable that the discovery of oil has dramatically changed human life. Oil dominates our daily lives in several forms. However, at the same time, petroleum and its by-products have become a major environmental threat.

Oil Spills involving tankers and rigs have polluted water bodies and badly affected the marine ecosystem. Over the last two centuries, several marine accidents have resulted in the spillage of millions of gallons of oil into our oceans .

Among the oil spills that occurred in the last five decades, the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill remains the worst to date. Over 11 million gallons of crude oil were released into the waters of the Gulf of Alaska in the accident that took place almost 30 years ago, killing thousands of marine lives.

Table of Contents

Major Facts about the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill

It was on March 24, 1989, that the Exxon Valdez oil tanker struck the Bligh Reef in Alaska’s Prince William Sound region to begin one of the biggest maritime fatalities. Exxon Valdez, then owned by Exxon Shipping Company, was en route to Long Beach, California, from the Valdez Marine Terminal when it slammed into the reef at around 12 am local time.

The oil tanker Exxon Valdez was loaded with roughly 54 million gallons of oil, of which 10.8 million gallons were released into the waters of Prince William Sound as the hull of the vessel was torn open in the accident. The Exxon Valdez oil spill is considered the second major oil spill in the US after the Gulf of Mexico’s Deepwater Horizon oil spill.

The Exxon Valdez disaster led to the examination of oil spill prevention rules and regulations in the US. The 1990 Oil Pollution Act mandated that oil companies take more extraordinary precautions by operating double-hull tankers and pay more significant penalties in case of future oil spills. In addition, the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council was formed to restore the marine habitats affected by accidents.

What Caused the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill?

Various reports following the accident have identified a number of factors that caused Exxon Valdez to run aground on the reef under the command of Captain Joseph Hazelwood. It was reported that the captain was not at the helm of the tanker when it encountered the accident on a route known for its navigational hazards.

According to reports, before handing over the ship’s control to the Third Mate, Hazelwood had apparently altered the vessel’s course to avoid icebergs. Unfortunately, the third mate failed to manoeuvre the vessel properly, and the ship left the shipping lane to collide with the reef, chiefly due to broken radar. The radar had not worked for over a year before the oil spill accident.

Further investigations also revealed that Hazelwood was under the influence of alcohol, and he was asleep in his bunk during the accident. Investigators also pointed out that Hazelwood made a mistake by handing over the vessel’s helm to the sleep-deprived Third Mate, who was also not professionally qualified to take control of the vessel. Further investigations revealed that the vessel didn’t have sufficient crew abroad to perform the duties.

Moreover, authorities found that Exxon, like many other shipping companies, was not following agreed-upon measures, including installing iceberg monitoring equipment.

Reports also said the accident occurred as the ship took a route not prescribed under the standard shipping route. Because of this violation by Exxon Valdez, its owner, Exxon Mobil, charted out a clause requiring the strict following of the prescribed shipping routes and lanes to avoid any further marine accident of a magnitude like the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill.

After a year-long investigation and trial, Hazelwood was acquitted of being drunk during the voyage. However, the captain was convicted of misdemeanour negligence, fined $50,000, and sentenced to serve 1,000 hours of community service.

The Impact of Exxon Valdez Oil Spill

The collision of the supertanker with the reef ruptured 8 of its 11 cargo tanks, releasing 11 million gallons of crude oil-250,000 barrels into the waters of Prince William Sound, contaminating over 1,300 miles of coastline.

A delay in initiating cleanup made this accident catastrophic. The oil slick spread to more areas within days, making it no longer containable.

As the oil slick spread, marine wildlife was threatened. Marine mammals face extinction because of the rise in temperatures, and they have to deal with this human error .

Seabirds were forced to succumb to this disaster as the oil slick in the water trapped them to drown eventually. It is estimated that almost 250,000 seabirds, 2,800 sea otters, up to 300 harbour seals, 250 bald eagles, and at least 22 killer whales were killed.

The spill ended the lives of herring and salmon, and commercial fishing of crab, herring, rockfish, salmon, shrimp, etc., was closed in the area. Many were impacted financially, but its indirect impact was visible on fisheries.

Due to the reduction and, in some areas, the complete absence of recreational fishing, a total financial loss of up to $580 million occurred.

Tourism was also hampered, and the number of tourists who arrived in Alaska was at a record low for almost a year following the oil spill, significantly impacting the local economy. According to reports, the oil spill affected more than 26,000 jobs in the tourism industry and over $2.4 billion in business.

Even though the company Exxon Mobil helped greatly in the clean-up operations along with the US Coast Guard, the inadvertent-yet-avertable accident caused by the Exxon Valdez ended up leaving a huge environmental impact.

Even years after the accident, the shoreline has yet to recover entirely from the oil spill. The oil discharged from the Exxon Valdez still clogs the beaches in Alaska, the fishing industry that collapsed after the accident hasn’t recovered fully, and the trauma it created among the fishing communities still remains- in the form of separated families and alcoholism.

Clean-Up of the Exxon Valdez Spill

The cleanup efforts were successful since the response to the incident was prompt by the US government and the company – Exxon Mobil.

Over 11,000 personnel, 58 aircraft, and 1,400 vessels were used to clear the affected area, and it involved complex operations like relocating several marine creatures to safeguard their lives until the clean-up operations were completed successfully.

The entire clean-up operation took around three years, from 1989 to 1992, and marine scientists are monitoring the area even now.

According to reports, the shipping company spent more than $3.8 billion on the cleanup costs and compensated 11,000 fishermen and others affected by the disaster.

The accident also led to several legal battles between the shipping company, the federal government, and the Alaska Fishers’ Union.

In 1994, an Alaskan court ordered Exxon to pay $5 billion in punitive damages. However, after several appeals, the U.S. Supreme Court reduced the amount to $507.5 million. During the operation, the oil cleaning methods included burning, mechanical cleanup, and chemical dispersants.

Surface oil was cleared up more significantly, while the ‘sub-surface oil’ remained. It contains far more poisonous, and despite the clean-up, about 20 acres of the Alaskan coastline is polluted by sub-surface oil.

The enormity of the marine casualty caused by Exxon Valdez is being felt even recently. However, owing to the prompt and effective response from the concerned parties, the impact of the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill will definitely be reduced.

Owing to this positivity, one can rest assured that despite an accident, one managed to avert the worst and did a marine salvage in the best possible manner.

You might also like to read:

• After the Big Spill, What Happened to the Ship Exxon Valdez?
• Video: Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Effects Linger
• What is an Oil Spill at Sea: Drills, Prevention And Methods Of Cleanup
• Video: Simulator Demonstrates Exxon Valdez Mishap
• 9 Methods for Oil Spill Cleanup at Sea
• Top 20 Major Oil Spill Incidents Since 1967

Disclaimer : The information contained in this website is for general information purposes only. While we endeavour to keep the information up to date and correct, we make no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, about the completeness, accuracy, reliability, suitability or availability with respect to the website or the information, products, services, or related graphics contained on the website for any purpose. Any reliance you place on such information is therefore strictly at your own risk.

In no event will we be liable for any loss or damage including without limitation, indirect or consequential loss or damage, or any loss or damage whatsoever arising from loss of data or profits arising out of, or in connection with, the use of this website.

Do you have info to share with us ? Suggest a correction

About Author

Journalist by training, and an academic in aspiration, Shamseer Mambra currently works as a freelance journalist, after spending three years in the newsrooms of some of the reputed media houses in India. When not at work, he likes to read, click photographs and go for a ride on his bike.

Read More Articles By This Author >

Daily Maritime News, Straight To Your Inbox

Sign Up To Get Daily Newsletters

Join over 60k+ people who read our daily newsletters

By subscribing, you agree to our  Privacy Policy  and may receive occasional deal communications; you can unsubscribe anytime.

BE THE FIRST TO COMMENT

This oil spill happened because the vessel traffic controllers at VTS Valdez dropped the ball. How do I know this, because I did that job in the late 70’s. I personally know both controllers involved.

You rehash the tired story that Captain Hazlewood was under the influence of alcohol. That was disputed at the time and later in court where he received considerable compensation for damage to his professional image. He never worked again at sea due to his tarnished reputation. EXXON blamed everyone else for the disaster while sending out smoke screen after smoke screen trying to avoid their own complicity. Their response to the oil spill was initially chaotic and badly co-ordinated, had they responded as you suggest many of the problems still affecting Prince William Sound could have been avoided. The biggest casualty of the EXXON lie were the unfortunate seamen who serve on ships trading world-wide who are subjected to unwarranted drug and alcohol tests imposed under the so called EXXON CLAUSE in most tanker charter parties. This draconian measure was one of the smoke screens employed to divert researchers from looking too closely for the real causes. I would remind everyone, the incident happened to a US flagged vessel with a US crew in a US port. Part of the US cabotage or Jones Act fleet. Why did the rest of the world have to pay for the poor management of EXXON tankers?

A lot of mistakes in this article. And the primary cause has not been revealed in the article. I have spent 3 years researching the incident and I think I have worked out the primary cause.

It’s been 30 years since the incident and it’s time everyone knows the true facts that occurred at the time of the incident. I was one of the first response contractors to step on the deck after the spill. I went straight to the galley where I met an individual that was at the helm “Bob” from Harahan La. he told me all of the deals of the event and there’s a lot more to the story than told.

Is English your second language? Or did you skip writing classes while in school. This article is very poorly written.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Subscribe to Marine Insight Daily Newsletter

" * " indicates required fields

Marine Engineering

Marine Engine Air Compressor Marine Boiler Oily Water Separator Marine Electrical Ship Generator Ship Stabilizer

Nautical Science

Mooring Bridge Watchkeeping Ship Manoeuvring Nautical Charts  Anchoring Nautical Equipment Shipboard Guidelines

Explore 

Free Maritime eBooks Premium Maritime eBooks Marine Safety Financial Planning Marine Careers Maritime Law Ship Dry Dock

Shipping News Maritime Reports Videos Maritime Piracy Offshore Safety Of Life At Sea (SOLAS) MARPOL

Advertisement

Contingent Valuation and Lost Passive Use: Damages from the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill

• Published: July 2003
• Volume 25 , pages 257–286, ( 2003 )

Cite this article

• Richard T. Carson 1 ,
• Robert C. Mitchell 2 ,
• Michael Hanemann 3 ,
• Raymond J. Kopp 4 ,
• Stanley Presser 5 &
• Paul A. Ruud 3  

5423 Accesses

324 Citations

18 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

We report on the results of a large-scale contingent valuation (CV) study conducted after the Exxon Valdez oil spill to assess the harm caused by it. Among the issues considered are the design features of the CV survey, its administration to a national sample of U.S. households, estimation of household willingness to pay to prevent another Exxon Valdez type oil spill, and issues related to reliability and validity of the estimates obtained. Events influenced by the study's release are also briefly discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Valuing the public’s demand for crime prevention programs: a discrete choice experiment

Contingent Valuation, Willingness to Pay, and Willingness to Accept

Retrospective Analysis: Results

Alberini, Anna and Richard T. Carson (1993), ‘Choice of Thresholds for Efficient Binary Discrete Choice Estimation’. Discussion Paper 90-34R, Department of Economics, University of California, San Diego.

Google Scholar  

Alberini, A., B. Kanninen and R.T. Carson (1997), ‘Modeling Response Incentives in Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Data’, Land Economics 73 , 309–324.

Arrow, Kenneth, Robert Solow, Paul R. Portney, Edward E. Leamer, Roy Radner and Howard Schuman (1993), ‘Report of the NOAA Panel on Contingent Valuation’, Federal Register 58 , 4601–4614.

Bateman, Ian, Richard T. Carson, Brett Day, W. Michael Hanemann, Nick Hanley, Tannis Hett, Michael Jones-Lee, Graham Loomes, Susana Mourato, Ece Özdemiroglu, David Pearce, Robert Sugden and John Swanson (2002), Economic Valuation with Stated Preference Techniques: A Manual . Northhampton, MA: Edward Elgar.

Bishop, Richard C. and Thomas A. Heberlein (1979), ‘Measuring Values of Extra-Market Goods: Are Indirect Measures Biased?’ American Journal of Agricultural Economics 61 , 926–930.

Bishop, Richard C. and Michael P. Welsh (1992), ‘Existence Values in Benefit-Cost Analysis and Damage Assessment’, Land Economics 68 , 405–417.

Carson, Richard T. (1997), ‘Contingent Valuation Surveys and Tests of Insensitivity to Scope’, in R.J. Kopp, W. Pommerhene and N. Schwartz (eds.), Determining the Value of Non-Marketed Goods: Economic, Psychological, and Policy Relevant Aspects of Contingent Valuation Methods . Boston: Kluwer.

Carson, Richard T. (forthcoming), Contingent Valuation: A Comprehensive Bibliography and History . Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.

Carson, Richad T., Michael B. Conaway, W. Michael Hanemann, Jon A. Krosnick, Robert Cameron Mitchell and Stanley Presser), Valuing Oil Spill Prevention: A Case Study of California 's Central Coast. Boston: Kluwer Academic Press, forthcoming.

Carson, Richard T., Nicholas E. Flores and W. Michael Hanemann (1998), ‘Sequencing and Valuing Public Goods’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 36 , 314–323.

Carson, Richard T., Nicholas E. Flores and Norman F. Meade (2001), ‘Contingent Valuation: Controversies and Evidence’, Environmental and Resource Economics 19 , 173–210.

Carson, Richard T., Nicholas E. Flores and Robert C. Mitchell (1999), ‘The Theory and Measurement of Passive Use Value’, in I.J. Bateman and K.G. Willis (eds.), Valuing Environmental Preferences: Theory and Practice of the Contingent Valuation Method in the US, EC, and Developing Countries . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Carson, R.T., T. Groves and M. Machina (1999), ‘Incentive and Informational Properties of Preferences Questions’, Plenary Address, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, Oslo, Norway.

Carson, Richard T., W. Michael Hanemann, Raymond J. Kopp, Jon A. Krosnick, Robert C. Mitchell, Stanley Presser, Paul A. Ruud and V. Kerry Smith (1997), ‘Temporal Reliability of Estimates from Contingent Valuation’, Land Economics 73 , 151–163.

Carson, Richard T. and Robert Cameron Mitchell (1995), ‘Sequencing and Nesting in Contingent Valuation Surveys’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 28 , 155–173.

Carson, Richard T. and Dan Steinberg (1990), ‘Experimental Design for Discrete Choice Voter Preference Surveys’, in 1989 Proceeding of the Survey Methodology Section of the American Statistical Association . Washington: American Statistical Association.

Carson, Richard T., Leanne Wilks and David Imber (1994), ‘Valuing the Preservation of Australia's Kakadu Conservation Zone’, Oxford Economic Papers 46 (S), 727–749.

Chapple, Clive (2000), ‘The 1990 Oil Pollution Act: Consequences for the Environment’, paper presented at the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists summer workshop, La Jolla, CA.

Diamond, Peter and Jerry A. Hausman (1994), ‘Contingent Valuation: Is Some Number Better Than No Number’, Journal of Economic Perspectives 8 (4), 45–64.

Fararo, Kim (1992), ‘Near Miss in the Narrows Oil-Laden Tanker's Tugboat Escort Puts Itself in a Hard Spot Between Middle Rock and a New Disaster’, Anchorage Daily News , November 22, A1.

Flores, Nicholas E. and Jennifer Thatcher (2002), ‘Money Who Needs It?: Natural Resource Damage Assessment’, Contemporary Economics Policy 20 , 171–178.

Haab, Timothy C. and Kenneth E. McConnell (1997), ‘Referendum Models and Negative Willingness to Pay: Alternative Solutions’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 32 , 251–270.

Hanemann, W. Michael (1991), ‘Willingness to Pay and Willingness to Accept: How Much Can They Differ?’ American Economic Review 81 , 635–647.

Hanemann, W. Michael (1994), ‘Valuing the Environment Through Contingent Valuation’, Journal of Economic Perspectives 8 (4), 19–43.

Hanemann (1999), ‘Neo-Classical Economic Theory and Contingent Valuation’, in I.J. Bateman and K.G. Willis (eds.), Valuing Environmental Preferences: Theory and Practice of the Contingent Valuation Method in the US, EC, and Developing Countries . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hanemann, W. Michael, John Loomis and Barbara Kanninen (1991), ‘Statistical Efficiency of Double-Bounded Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation’, American Journal of Agricultural Economics 73 , 1255–1263.

Hausman, Jerry A. (ed.) (1993), Contingent valuation: A Critical Assessment . Amsterdam: North-Holland.

Hoehn, John P. and Alan Randall (1989), ‘Too Many Proposals Pass the Benefit Cost Test’, American Economic Review 79 , 544–551.

Kahneman, Daniel and Jack L. Knetsch (1992), ‘Valuing Public Goods: The Purchase of Moral Satisfaction’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 22 , 57–70.

Kopp, Raymond J., Paul R. Portney and V. Kerry Smith (1990), ‘The Economics of Natural Resource Damages After Ohio v. U.S. Department of the Interior ’, Environmental Law Reporter 20 (4), 10127–10131.

Kristrom, Bengt (1997), ‘Spike Models in Contingent Valuation’, American Journal of Agricultural Economics 79 , 1013–1023.

Krueger, Richard A. (1988), Focus groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research . Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Louviere, Jordan J., David A. Hensher and Joffre D. Swait (2000), Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Applications . New York: Cambridge University Press.

McConnell, Kenneth E. (1993), ‘Indirect Methods for Assessing Natural Resource Damages Under CERCLA’, in R.J. Kopp and V.K. Smith (eds.), Valuing Natural Assets: The Economics of Natural Resource Damage Assessment . Washington: Resources for the Future.

Mitchell, Robert Cameron (2002), ‘On Designing Constructed Markets in Valuation Surveys’, Environmental and Resource Economics 22 , 297–321.

Mitchell, Robert Cameron and Richard T. Carson (1989), Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method . Washington: Resources for the Future.

Mitchell, Robert Cameron (1995), ‘Current Issues in the Design, Administration, and Analysis of Contingent Valuation Surveys’, in P.O. Johansson, B. Kristrom and K.G. Mäler (eds.), Current Issues in Environmental Economics . Manchester: Manchester University Press.

Moore, William H. (1994), ‘The Grounding of the Exxon Valdez: An Examination of the Human and Organizational Factors’, Marine Technology 31 , 41–51.

Morgan, David L. (ed.) (1993), Successful Focus Groups: Advancing the State of the Art . Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

National Transportation Safety Board (1990), Grounding of the U.S. Tankership Exxon Valdez on Bligh Reef, Prince William Sound Near Valdez Alaska , PB90-916405. Washington: National Safety Transportation Board.

Nelson, Wayne (1982), Applied Life Analysis . New York: John Wiley.

Portney, Paul R. (1994), ‘The Contingent Valuation Debate: Why Economists Should Care’, Journal of Economic Perspectives 8 (4), 3–17.

Sudman, Seymour (1976), Applied Sampling . New York: Academic.

Turnbull, Bruce W. (1976), ‘The Empirical Distribution Function with Arbitrarily Grouped, Censored and Truncated Data’, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B 38 , 290–295.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

University of California, San Diego, USA

Richard T. Carson

Clark University, USA

Robert C. Mitchell

University of California, Berkeley, USA

Michael Hanemann & Paul A. Ruud

Resources for the Future, USA

Raymond J. Kopp

University of Maryland, USA

Stanley Presser

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Carson, R.T., Mitchell, R.C., Hanemann, M. et al. Contingent Valuation and Lost Passive Use: Damages from the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill. Environmental and Resource Economics 25 , 257–286 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024486702104

Download citation

Issue Date : July 2003

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024486702104

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• natural resource damage assessment
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

How Exxon paid researchers to cast doubt on punitive damages following Valdez spill

• Zahra Khozema

Share this article

Artist rendering showing Stanford University law professor Jeffrey Fisher, right, speaking before the Supreme Court in Washington, Wednesday, Feb. 27, 2008, in the Exxon Valdez case. Photo by: The Canadian Press/AP/Dana Verkouteren)

It's no secret that corporations do their own research and fund outside academics.

Following the Exxon Valdez oil spill in 1989, the oil giant supported many scientists who investigated its physical effects.

But in this episode of  Slick Science , we find something surprising happened after the trial we heard about last time. Exxon also poured big money into social scientists, including behavioural economists, psychologists, and legal theorists — areas that don’t usually get a lot of corporate dollars, to avoid paying billions in punitive damages.

Get daily news from Canada's National Observer

The company hired at least nine esteemed psychologists, economists and law and business school faculty members, giving them levels of research funding some social scientists could only dream about.

These Exxon-funded scholars developed an argument that, if accepted, would make it way more difficult to win punitive damages from companies that harm the environment.

In the final episode, host Gordon Katic digs through the notes of environmental sociologist Bill Freudenburg, who worked on some research funded by Exxon. Though Freudenburg died in 2010, he left behind field notes charting his entire relationship with Exxon, illustrating exactly how the corporation instructed him.

We also hear perspectives from Exxon-funded research suggesting that punitive damages should not be left to juries to decide. According to these researchers, decisions made by juries on punitive damages are incoherent, contradictory, and inconsistent due to their short attention spans and their lack of experience and expertise.

With a better understanding of corporations and their hand in academia, the shocking final verdict on the Exxon Valdez oil spill starts to make sense.

In this final episode of Slick Science, we learn how corporations like Exxon fight back with research they fund.

Listen to episode three, Irrational Juries , wherever you get your podcasts. You can also catch up on episodes one and two here . Happy listening!

Slick Science: The toxic legacy of the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill is a collaboration between  Canada’s National Observer  and  Cited Podcast .

Keep reading

12 Angry Alaskans

• Investigations
• Slick Science

Listen to "Alaskan Nightmare"

Fossil fuel companies lean on sustainability standards board to weaken disclosure rules

• John Woodside
• Share on LinkedIn