Skip to: Content
Skip to: Site Navigation
Skip to: Search

  • Advertisements

After 13 years, Valdez's oil damage lingers

New evidence challenges perceptions that the spill damage is over, leading to calls for Exxon to pay more.



  • Print
  • E-mail
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Digg
  • Add This
  • Permissions

By Todd Wilkinson, Special to The Christian Science Monitor / October 29, 2002

WHITTIER, ALASKA

With the demeanor of a friendly sea captain, Gerry Sanger loves leading tourists out of port to spot humpback whales breaching on a glittery horizon framed by the fjords of Prince William Sound.

Nearly 14 years after the tanker Exxon Valdez ran aground here, causing the worst oil spill in US history, Mr. Sanger does brisk business with whalewatchers from around the world. But as marvelous as they find the oceanscape, the former federal wildlife biologist says their perception of the Sound as again pristine differs from reality.

"When you look out over the water, everything seems fine. But you can't judge the health of the environment on that," says Sanger. "The impacts of the spill are hidden beneath the surface."

A newly released assessment of marine life in Prince William Sound concurs with that view, highlighting a number of creatures that have yet to recover from the accident.

In the wake of these latest findings, the Coastal Coalition, a group of conservationists and scientists, is asking a federal judge to force Exxon Mobil to pay an additional $100 million to address damages unforeseen following a 1991 settlement between the company, the federal government, and Alaska.

But beyond the issue of monetary awards, the lingering effects have prompted another question: Can human environmental remediation really heal landscapes severely tarnished by industrial mishaps?

How do you define 'recovery'?

For some, like the oil industry, the answer is yes. "Our sense is that Prince William Sound essentially has recovered," says Exxon Mobil spokesman Tom Cirigliano. "Of course, it all depends on what your definition of recovery is." Exxon Mobil insists that damage awards of another $100 million are unnecessary until proved otherwise.

Yet others in Alaska see a bleaker picture and point to evidence of an ecosystem that, in their estimation, is far from recovered and may never recapture what has been lost. Rick Steiner, director of the Coastal Coalition and professor at the University of Alaska in Anchorage, says the insidious effects of pollution present in Prince William are clear, from oil still visible under rocks on many beaches, to wildlife populations that remain depressed in number.

A lingering aftermath

"People who spent a lot of time in Prince William before the spill will tell you it has become the 'Sound of silence,'" Mr. Steiner says. "There used to be a profusion of seabirds filling the sky with their calls but their absence is, I believe, symptomatic of something more far- reaching. The oil spill left the system in a condition of chaos."

On March 24, 1989, some 11 million gallons of North Slope crude escaped through a cracked hull into the Gulf of Alaska, spreading a toxic sheen westward across thousands of square miles of open ocean and soaking 1,500 miles of largely pristine coastline.

Page: 1 | 2 Next Page

  • Print
  • E-mail
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Digg
  • Add This
  • Permissions