INTRODUCTION
On March 24, 1989, the Exxon Valdez grounded on Bligh Reef, a well-known navigational hazard, spilling over 11 million gallons (42,000 tons) into Prince William Sound, a pristine, protected, extremely productive, cold-water marine environment. The spill occurred just prior to the time of annual peak biological productivity.
The oil eventually covered over 10,000 square miles of Alaska’s coastal seas, spread 600 miles from the site of the grounding, and oiled shorelines of Prince William Sound, the Kenai Peninsula, lower Cook Inlet, the Kodiak Archipelago, and the Alaska Peninsula. In all, over 1,500 miles of Alaska’s shoreline were oiled, including portions of Kenai Fjords National Park, Katmai National Park and Preserve, Aniakchak National Monument and Preserve, Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge, the Chugach National Forest, and extensive areas that have been inhabited for millennia by Alaska Natives.
With litigation a driving factor, the efforts by state, federal, and Exxon scientists to study the effects of the spill have been unprecedented. More components of the Exxon Valdez oil spill have been studied more intensively post-spill than any other spill in recorded history. Hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent by federal and state governments and by Exxon to study intertidal plants and animals, fish, birds, and marine and terrestrial mammals. Millions more have been spent analyzing the oil spill’s effects on humans.
Results of Exxon Valdez oil spill (EVOS) studies were held in a tight clamp of secrecy, pending resolution of federal and state claims against Exxon for various criminal violations and for natural resource damages. When these criminal and civil lawsuits were settled in December 1991, scientists were invited by to share their findings with colleagues and the pubic at an EVOS Trustee Council-sponsored symposium in early February, 1993, in Anchorage, Alaska. While federal and state "government" scientists presented their results in February, Exxon scientists chose instead to present their findings at a separate conference, sponsored by the ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials), held in late April, 1993, in Atlanta, Georgia.
Results presented at the two conferences paint starkly contrasting pictures of injury to and recovery of the Prince William Sound ecosystem. In general, government studies show long-term effects in a variety of species and delayed ecosystem recovery, while Exxon studies conclude there are virtually no long-term effects and that there is rapid ecosystem recovery. It must be noted that Exxon still has tens of billions of dollars at stake in outstanding civil lawsuits from private plaintiffs over damages.
The goals of this paper are threefold and addressed in three key sections of this paper.
Section 1 compares key studies on natural resources presented by government and Exxon scientists to determine possible causes for the extreme differences in results. The experimental design, methodology, statistics, results, discussion and conclusions of each paper are examined for potential sources of error and bias which could have resulted in under- or over- estimating injury. A total of 32 studies are compared, 20 government and 12 Exxon studies.
Section 2 presents a five-year status of recovery of both natural and human resources in Prince William Sound. The status of natural resources is based on government data, and the reasons for rejecting Exxon’s data are presented. The status of human resources affected by the Exxon Valdez spill is based on studies by government and independent scientists.
Section 3 examines the roles of the scientific community, Congress, and the state and federal governments in improving the quality of science that becomes part of the public domain, particularly science undertaken in the aftermath of an oil spill. Recommendations for change are discussed.