Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T05:35:57.983Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Exxon Valdez Oil-spill: Ecological and Social Consequences

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 August 2009

David G. Shaw
David G. Shaw
Affiliation:
Professor of Marine Science and Chemistry, Institute of Marine Science, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, Alaska 99775–1080, USA.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Major oil-spills, such as occurred following the grounding of the tanker Exxon Valdez in March 1989 in Prince William Sound, Alaska, account for only a small fraction of the total anthropogenic input of petroleum to the marine environment. Yet major spills can result in significant and even acute impacts, trigger ecological changes requiring decades for recovery, and command considerable public attention. Thus catastrophic oil-spills in general, and the Exxon Valdez spill in particular, differ from other chronic human alterations of coastal marine systems.

Estimates of the fate of the 38,000 metric tons of crude oil lost by the Exxon Valdez are imprecise, but perhaps 30–40% evaporated, 10–25% was recovered, and the rest remains in the marine environment. Roughly 1,500 km of coastline were oiled in varying degrees. Much of this coastline consists of gravel beaches into which oil penetrated to depths as great as 1 m.

The ecological effects of the spill on the marine environments of Prince William Sound and adjacent coastal areas of the Gulf of Alaska were extensive, but natural recovery, aided by clean-up efforts, is expected. Judging by the consequences of other oil-spills affecting rocky shorelines, as well as previous natural and anthropogenic disturbances to Prince William Sound, it appears likely that most affected biotic communities and ecosystems will recover to approximately their pre-spill functional and structural characteristic within from five to twenty-five years.

This oil-spill had major social effects. Many individuals, whether personally present or viewing the spill around the world on television, were saddened by the environmental damage, and felt that an important public trust had been broken. These feelings, together with dissatisfaction with the results of early clean-up efforts, gave rise to popular sentiment in favour of every possible clean-up and mitigation effort — regardless of cost, effectiveness, or possible negative consequences.

The response to the Exxon Valdez oil-spill by government and the oil industry revealed serious inadequacies in the plans and institutions for dealing with major marine oilspills in the United States. Attempts to recover spilled oil, and to respond to the spill's environmental consequences, were hampered by a low level of preparedness and lack of clear agreement about the goals of response efforts. Attempts are under way to improve oil-spill prevention and response capabilities in Alaska and the rest of the United States. However, these efforts are not yet complete, and it remains to be seen whether an improved response will be made to the next major oil-spill.

Type
Main Papers
Information
Environmental Conservation , Volume 19 , Issue 3 , Autumn 1992 , pp. 253 - 258
Copyright
Copyright © Foundation for Environmental Conservation 1992

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alaska Oil Spill Commission (1990). Spill: The Wreck of the Exxon Valdez. Executive Summary of the Alaska Oil Spill Commission, Juneau, Alaska, USA: 224 pp., illustr.Google Scholar
Busch, L. (1991). Science under wraps in Prince William Sound. Science, 252, pp. 772–3.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chianelli, R.R., Aczel, T., Bare, R.E., George, G.N., Genowitz, M.W., Grossman, M.J., Haith, C.E., Kaiser, F.J., Lessard, R.R., Liotta, R., Mastracchio, R.L., Minak-Bernero, M.J., Prince, R.C., Robbins, W.K., Steifel, E.I., Wilkinson, J.B., Hinton, S.M., Bragg, J.R., McMillen, S.J. & Atlas, R.M. (1991). Bioremediation technology development and application to the Alaskan spill. Pp. 549–58 with 11 figs and 1 table in Proceedings of the 1991 International Oil Spill Conference. American Petroleum Institute Publication No. 4529, Washington, DC, USA: xxviii + 739 pp., illustr.Google Scholar
Duggins, D.O., Simenstad, E.O. & Estes, J.A. (1989). Magnification of secondary production by kelp detritus in coastal marine ecosystems. Science, 245, pp. 170–3, 4 figs.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Estes, J.A. (1991). Catastrophies and conservation: lessons from Sea Otters and the Exxon Valdez. Science, 254, p. 1956.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feder, H.M. & Jewett, S.C. (1988). The subtidal benthos. Pp. 165–202 with 7 figs and 4 tables in Environmental Studies in Port Valdez, Alaska (Eds Shaw, D.G. & Hameedi, M.J.). Springer, New York, NY, USA: xiii + 423 pp., illustr.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galt, J.A., Lehr, W.J. & Payton, D.L. (1991). Fate and transport of the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Environmental Science and Technology, 25, pp. 202–9, 6 figs.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gundlach, E., Pavia, E.A., Robinson, C. & Gibeaut, J.C. (1991). Shoreline surveys at the Exxon Valdez oil spill: the State of Alaska response. Pp. 519–29 with 9 figs and 1 table in Proceedings of the 1991 International Oil Spill Conference. American Petroleum Institute Publication No. 4529, Washington, DC, USA: xxviii + 739 pp., illustr.Google Scholar
Houghton, J.P., Lees, D.C., Driskell, W.B. & Mearns, A.J. (1991). Impacts of the Exxon Valdez spill and subsequent cleanup on intertidal biota — 1 year later. Pp. 467–75 with 2 figs and 6 tables in Proceedings of the 1991 Internatonal Oil Spill Conference. American Petroleum Institute Publication No. 4529, Washington, DC, USA: xxviii + 739 pp., illustr.Google Scholar
Johnson, W.R., Royer, T.C. & Luick, J.L. (1988). On the seasonal variability of the Alaska Coastal Current. Journal of Geophysical Research, 93, pp. 12423–37, 11 figs and 6 tables.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, P. (1991). Gulf war oil-slick. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 22, p. 102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kenyon, K.W. (1975). The Sea Otter in the Eastern Pacific Ocean. Dover, New York, NY, USA: 352 pp., illustr.Google Scholar
Lindstedt-Siva, J. (1991). U.S. oil spill policy hampers response and hurts science. Pp. 349–52 in Proceedings of the 1991 International Oil Spill Conference. American Petroleum Institute Publication No. 4529, Washington, DC, USA: xxviii + 739 pp., illustr.Google Scholar
McRoy, C.P. (1988). Natural and anthropogenic changes at the ecosystem level. Pp. 329–44 in Environmental Studies in Port Valdez, Alaska (Eds Shaw, D.G. & Hameedi, M.J.). Springer, New York, NY, USA: xiii + 423 pp., illustr.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mair, H. (1988). Two-year ban on seal culls. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 19, pp. 650–1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meidt, R.M. (1991). Public perceptions in spill response. Pp. 333–7 in Proceedings of the 1991 International Oil Spill Conference. American Petroleum Institute Publication No. 4529, Washington, DC, USA: xxviii + 739 pp., illustr.Google Scholar
Michel, J., Henry, C., Sexton, W.J. & Hayes, M.O. (1990). The Exxon Valdez winter monitoring program results. Pp. 396–407 with 6 figs and 1 table in Oil Spills, Management and Legislative Implications (Eds Spalding, M.L. & Reed, M.). American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, NY, USA: 570 pp., illustr.Google Scholar
National Academy of Science (1975). Petroleum in the Marine Environment. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, USA: xi + 107 pp., illustr.Google Scholar
National Academy of Science (1985). Oil on the Sea. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, USA: xviii + 601 pp., illustr.Google Scholar
Payne, J.R. & McNabb, G.D. Jr, (1984). Weathering of petroleum in the marine environment. Marine Technology Society Journal, 18, pp. 24–42 with 10 figs and 2 tables.Google Scholar
Piatt, J.F., Lensink, C.J., Butler, W., Kenziorek, M. & Nysewander, D.R. (1990). Immediate impact of the ‘Exxon Valdez’ oil spill on marine birds. The Auk, 107, pp. 387–97 with 3 figs and 1 table.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pritchard, P.H. & Costa, C.F. (1991). EPA's Alaska oil spill bioremediation project. Environmental Science and Technology, 25, pp. 372–9 with 6 figs.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Southward, A.J. & Southward, E.G. (1978). Recolonization of rocky shores in Cornwall after use of toxic dispersants to clean up the Torrey Canyon spill. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada, 35, pp. 682–706 with 21 figs and 2 tables.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, C.J., Coleman, H.J., Dooley, J.E. & Hirsch, D.E. (1971). Bumines analysis shows characteristics of Prudhoe Bay crude. Oil and Gas Journal, 69(43), pp. 112–20 with 3 figs and 1 table.Google Scholar
United States (1991). United States of America, Plaintiff, v. Exxon Corporation et al., Defendents: Notice of Lodging of United States' Summary of Effects of Exxon Valdez Oil Spill on Natural Resources. United States District Court, District of Alaska, Anchorage, Alaska, 04 8, 22 pp.Google Scholar
Walker, A.H. & Field, L.J. (1991). Subsistence fisheries and the Exxon Valdez: human health concerns. Pp. 441–6 with fig and table in Proceedings of the 1991 International Oil Spill Conference. American Petroleum Institute Publication No. 4529, Washington, DC, USA: xxviii + 739 pp., illustr.Google Scholar
Westermeyer, W.E. (1991). Oil spill response capabilities in the United States. Environmental Science and Technology, 25, pp. 196–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar