Exxon Penalties Could Rise as Valdez Oil Lingers
Date: 24-Mar-04
Country: ALASKA
Author: Yereth Rosen
But local residents and some government scientists are at odds on whether Exxon Mobil Corp. should be forced to pay an additional civil penalty for the spill.
The landmark $900 million civil settlement Exxon signed in 1991 to resolve federal and state environmental claims included a $100 million re-opener clause for damages that "could not reasonably have been known" or anticipated. Under the settlement terms, the re-opener may be asserted until 2006.
Doing so would be a legal decision, not a scientific one, say those studying the spill.
"I think it's pretty clear that there were adverse effects that were not anticipated. I think that's pretty well established. It doesn't make a case for the re-opener," said Jeff Short, a National Marine Fisheries Service scientist who studied the lingering oil spill's effects.
POISONING SEA LIFE
Experts assumed all the 11 million gallons (50 million liters) of crude from the March 24, 1989 spill would be gone by 1995, Short said at a recent conference in Anchorage. But 600 tonnes of oil remained on beaches in 1995, much of it still liquid, he said.
Sea otters digging into relatively fresh oil are still unleashing toxins, he said. And government studies indicate that oil causes harm at much lower concentrations than originally believed and that previously ignored chronic effects are long-lasting.
Even if those findings are surprising, the settlement requires more than that to enact the re-opener. It mandates specific restoration projects to address the unanticipated injuries.
Identifying such projects could be difficult, some scientists concede.
Ending all damages - such as the swollen and pale livers in sea otters loyal to the spill-struck beaches - could require a generational turnover, said Brenda Ballachey, an expert with the U.S. Geological Survey. "It may be that if there's liver damage, it's lifelong for animals," she said.
Some environmentalists fear that there will be no attempt by the Bush administration or Republican Gov. Frank Murkowski to secure the additional $100 million.
'COZY WITH THE OIL COMPANIES'
"If any case deserves a re-opener, this one does," said Rick Steiner, a marine biologist and environmental activist.
"I'm perfectly confident that the entire $100 million can and should be obtained. The fact that they haven't gone after it indicates that the two administrations are simply too cozy with the oil companies," he said.
The government settlement is a separate case from the class-action lawsuit filed by fishermen, Alaska Natives, property and business owners, and municipalities.
In that case, a jury in 1994 ruled that Exxon's actions leading to the spill were reckless and reprehensible, and the panel awarded a $5 billion punitive fine to the plaintiffs. After various appeals, a federal judge upheld a fine of $4.5 billion, plus interest.
"We have until 2006 to do this. We don't want to do it prematurely, and we don't want to do it ineffectively," said Assistant Alaska Attorney General Craig Tillery.
The re-opener was one of the most difficult parts of the 1991 settlement, said former Alaska Attorney General Charlie Cole, who represented the state in the settlement deal.
"We negotiated on that clause for two or three days. Each word was thoroughly discussed and carefully selected," he said. The government insisted on the provision despite Exxon's opposition, said Cole, who supports using the re-opener.
LONG-TERM DAMAGE?
Exxon Mobil, the successor to Exxon Corp., argues that there is no lingering harm from the 1989 spill.
"The environment in Prince William Sound is healthy, robust and thriving. That's evident to anyone who's been there, and it is also the conclusion of many scientists who have done extensive studies of the Prince William Sound ecosystem," Exxon Mobil said in a statement.
"What science has learned in Alaska and elsewhere is that while oil spills can have acute short-term effects, the environmen
