Here's How Exxon Tried to Avoid Paying for Its Massive Oil Spill -- Let's Not Allow BP to Do the Same
By Riki Ott, Reuters
Posted on May 3, 2010, Printed on May 3, 2010
http://www.alternet.org/story/146700/I remember the words, ?We?ve had the Big One,? with chilling clarity, spoken just over 21 years ago when a fellow fisherman arrived at my door in the early morning and announced that the Exxon Valdez had run aground in Alaska?s Prince William Sound and was gushing oil.
For the small fishing community of Cordova, Alaska, where I lived and worked as a commercial fisherma?am, it was our worst nightmare.
That nightmare is reoccurring now with BP?s deadly rig blowout off the Gulf Coast ? with haunting parallels to the Exxon Valdez.
I was not at all surprised when officials reported zero spillage, then projected modest spillage, and then reported spill amounts five times higher than their earlier estimates.
As the spill continues, I imagine that even the newly reported amounts will continue to vastly underestimate the actual spillage.
Underreporting of spill volumes is common, even though lying about self-reported spill volume is illegal ? and a breach of public trust.
Still, penalties are based on spill volume: Exxon likely saved itself several billion dollars by sticking with its low-end estimate of 11 million gallons and scuttling its high-end estimate of 38 million gallons, later validated by independent surveyors.
Sadly, it?s a foregone conclusion that BP?s promise to ?do everything we can? to minimize the spill?s impact and stop the oil still hemorrhaging from the well nearly one mile under the sea off Louisiana?s coast will fade as its attention turns to minimizing its liability, including damaged public relations.
BP will likely leverage the billions of dollars it will spend on the cleanup to reduce its fines and lawsuit expenses, despite later recouping a large portion of the cleanup cost from insurers or writing it off as a business expense as Exxon did.
Such tactics saved Exxon billions of dollars in the civil settlement for damages to public lands and wildlife (in which damages were estimated at up to $8 billion; but for which Exxon paid just $900 million) and in the class action lawsuit filed by those whose livelihoods were curtailed by the spill (for which the original jury awarded $5 billion in punitive damages; but which Exxon fought for 20 years until the Supreme Court lessened its burden to just $507 million).
That Supreme Court decision strictly limited corporate liability and essentially removed the ability of future oil spill victims to hold corporations accountable to the people and the law.
A friend in New Orleans is concerned about the oil fumes now engulfing the southern part of town. He says it ?smells pretty strong?stronger than standing in a busy mechanics shop, but not as bad as the bus station in Tijuana.?
State health officials are warning people who are sensitive to reduced air quality to stay indoors, but anyone who experiences the classic symptoms of crude oil overexposure?nausea, vomiting, headaches, or cold or flu-like symptoms?should seek medical help.
This is serious: Oil spill cleanups are regulated as hazardous waste cleanups because oil is, in fact, hazardous to health. Breathing oil fumes is extremely harmful.
After the 2002 Prestige oil spill off Galicia, Spain, and the 2007 Hebei Spirit oil spill in South Korea, medical doctors found fishermen and cleanup workers suffered from respiratory problems, central nervous system problems (headaches, nausea, dizziness, etc.), and even genetic damage (South Korea). I have attended two international conferences the past two years to share information with these doctors.
During the Exxon Valdez spill, health problems among cleanup workers became so widespread, so fast, that medical doctors, among others, sounded warnings. Dr. Robert Rigg, former Alaska medical director for Standard Alaska (BP), warned, ?It is a known fact that neurologic changes (brain damage), skin disorders (including cancer), liver and kidney damage, cancer of other organ systems, and medical complications?secondary to exposure to working unprotected in (or inadequately protected)?can and will occur to workers exposed to crude oil and other petrochemical by-products. While short-term complaints, i.e., skin irritation, nausea, dizziness, pulmonary symptoms, etc., may be the initial signs of exposure and toxicity, the more serious long-term effects must be prevented.?[1]
Unfortunately, Exxon called the short-term symptoms, ?the Valdez Crud,? and dismissed 6,722 cases of respiratory claims from cleanup workers as ?colds or flu? using an exemption under OSHA?s hazardous waste cleanup reporting requirements.[2]
Sadly, sick Exxon cleanup workers were left to suffer and pay their own medical expenses. I know of many who have been disabled by their illnesses ? or have died.
I have repeatedly warned Congress in letters and in person to strike that loophole because it exempts the very work-related injuries?chemical induced illnesses?that OSHA is supposedly designed to protect workers from.
Remember the ?Katrina Crud? and the ?911 Crud?? Standby for the ?Gulf Crud? because our federal laws do not adequately protect worker safety or public health from the very real threat of breathing oil vapors, including low levels typically found in our industrial ports, our highways during rush hour traffic, and our urban cities.
Oil is not only harmful to people, it is deadly to wildlife. I am sickened to think of the short-term destruction and long-term devastation that will happen along America?s biologically rich coastal wetlands ? a national treasure and a regional source of income.
In Alaska, the killing did not stop in 1989. Twenty-one years later, buried oil is still contaminating wildlife and Prince William Sound has not returned to pre-spill conditions ? nor, honestly, will it. The remnant population of once-plentiful herring no longer supports commercial fisheries and barely sustains the ecosystem.
While local efforts to boom Louisiana?s fragile coasts to keep the oil out will help people feel productive and empowered (and this is important), it is an unfortunate truth that the booms have limited utility and effectiveness. In even mild sea conditions, oil will wash over and under boom. Further, underneath the visible oil slick, there is an invisible cloud of toxic oil dissolved into the water column and this dissolved oil is deadly to shrimp and fish eggs and marine life.
Still, the Gulf spill has one advantage over the Alaska spill ? hot weather and the relatively warm ocean will speed the work of bacteria to degrade the Louisiana crude. Even so, the initial toxic hit is likely to harm generations of wildlife, similar to what happened in Prince William Sound.
The oil industry has had over 40 years ? since the 1967 Torrey Canyon tanker spill in England ? to make good on its promise to cleanup future oil spills. This latest spill highlights the harsh truth that the industry has failed to live up to its promise. It is time for Americans to demand of our leaders accountability and closure of fossil fuel industries ? as we transition to new energies.
[1] City of Cordova Fact Sheet, 1989 1[29]: Robert Rigg, MD, Letter to Cordova District Fishermen United, 13 May 1989.
[2] U.S. Dept. of Labor, OSHA 29 CFR Part 1904.5(b)(2)(viii): ?Colds and flu will not be considered work-related.?
Riki Ott, PhD, is a community activist, a former fisherm'am, and has a degree in marine toxicology with a specialty in oil pollution. She is also the author of Sound Truth and Corporate Myth$: The Legacy of the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill.
? 2010 Reuters All rights reserved.
View this story online at:
http://www.alternet.org/story/146700/
