South Dublin Branch ###

The Exxon Valdez spill, ten years on. Experts differ on the fallout ... May 2001 Most seabird populations hit by the "Exxon Valdez" oil spill in Alaska have still to show signs of recovery over a decade after the disaster, say scientists from the US Fish and Wildlife Service. Scientists from the US Fish and Wildlife Service in Anchorage claim that most seabird populations hit by the "Exxon Valdez" oil spill have not recovered. This contradicts the claims of both Exxon (ESSO), the oil company responsible for the spill, and other researchers who say that all affected species are well on the road to recovery, if not back to normal. David Irons and colleagues in Anchorage surveyed seabird populations over eight years in Prince William Sound, scene of the 1989 spill. Of 17 taxa whose numbers were hit by the spill, he found that four showed only a "weak to very weak" recovery from the disaster. Nine "showed no evidence of recovery", while four continued to show signs of being increasingly affected by the pollution from the spill. Seabirds that don't seem to be recovering include cormorants, various gulls, grebes, terns and murres, a kind of guillemot hardest hit by the spill. Most of the 30,000 oil-covered carcasses collected in the months after the spill were murres. "Densities of pigeon guillemots in oiled areas are still going down in summer," says Irons. However, Exxon, now part of Exxon-Mobil, which has been involved in lengthy litigation since the disaster, says that "the environment in Prince William Sound is healthy, robust and thriving". Its claims are backed in part by the findings of John Wiens of the University of Colorado, another leading analyst of the spill's aftermath. He has recently concluded that all of the impacted species show strong evidence of recovery. Wiens has said that "preconceptions that oil spills are bad can easily lead to one adopting an advocacy position in which science suffers". But Irons disputes Wiens's methodology. He says Wiens uses a relatively tough test for showing birds have suffered after the spill, and a less demanding standard for identifying recovery. "The burden of proof is placed on the data to establish injury, but not recovery," he says. Irons believes that birds are still suffering because food in the intertidal zone and shallow waters near the shore, such as mussels, is still contaminated with oil. Populations of other prey species are still much lower than before the spill, Irons says. For instance, Pacific herring and clams "had not recovered by 2000". Exxon-Mobil argues that it is unreasonable to expect all bird populations to recover because there are other environmental changes affecting the numbers. "For example, average summer water temperatures have increased in the last 10 years at least three to four degrees above the historical average," says the company. But Irons believes the oil spill is still to blame. "Lingering effects of the spill and natural variability appear to be acting in concert in delaying recovery of the bird populations," he says. From New Scientist 5th May, 2001 A US court has almost halved the damages oil giant Exxon Mobil must pay for a 1989 oil spill off Alaska. The San Francisco Federal appeals court reduced the payment from $4.5bn to $2.5bn, saying the previous decision had been excessive. It is the third time damages in the case have been reduced. The case - started in 1994 by more than 32,000 fishermen, native Alaskans and property owners - is one of the longest non-criminal ones in US history. In the original court ruling, Exxon was ordered to pay out $5bn. Later decisions ordered the a lower Alaskan court to set a lower limit for the penalty, but refused to say how much the penalty should be cut by. However, in the latest 2-1 judgement, Chief Judge Mary Schroeder and Judge Andrew Kleinfeld declared it was "time for this protracted litigation to end." Exxon was not immediately available for comment. However, the firm has previously argued that it should have to pay no more than $25m in punitive damages in the case as it has spent $3.5bn on cleaning up the affected area and compensating victims of the spill. David Oesting, the lawyer leading the effort against Exxon Mobil for the Alaskans affected by the spill, said he was considering whether to ask for the case to be reheard by 15 judges or whether to take it to the Supreme Court. The Exxon Valdez supertanker spilled 11 million gallons of crude oil into Prince William Sound, polluting around 2,000km of coastline. Its captain, Joseph Hazelwood, admitted drinking vodka before boarding the vessel, but was acquitted of operating a ship while intoxicated. The disaster is estimated to have killed 250,000 seabirds, 2,800 sea otters, 300 harbour seals, 250 bald eagles, up to 22 killer whales, and an unknown number of salmon and herring. www.bbc.co.uk - December 2006