Why Exxon Owes - Opinion

Anchorage Daily News
June 25, 2002

adn.com/opinion/story/1310909p-1429938c.html

Why Exxon owes Alaska $5 billion
Compass
By Riki Ott
TY: Commentary
(Published: June 25, 2002)

Recently, Exxon's lawyers proposed a punitive penalty of $25 million to $40 million instead of the $5 billion awarded by an Alaska jury eight years ago. I'd like to make a case for why the penalty should be at least $5 billion.

First, Exxon underreported how much oil it spilled. In an unpublished investigation on file at the Alaska Resources Library and Information Services, the state found Exxon spilled about 35 million gallons.

The three Exxon tankers used to lighter the Exxon Valdez went to Exxon refineries to recover what Exxon insisted was pure "oil," but there was so much water in some of this "oil" that the refineries refused to offload all of it. The refineries recovered what oil they could and returned the wastewater to each tanker. The oily water was ballast for the return trip to the Valdez terminal, where the amount of water -- and approximate oil content -- was duly recorded on ballast water survey forms.

These forms show that the Baton Rouge carried about 10.14 million gallons (mg) of water from the Exxon Valdez; the San Francisco about 9.17 mg; and the Baytown about 5.01 mg. This is 24.32 million gallons of water, which Exxon claimed was oil: 24.32 plus 11 million gallons shows Exxon actually spilled closer to 35 million gallons (28 mg to 42 mg with a 20 percent error margin).

That's more than three times as much oil as Exxon reported. Exxon's figure for oiled coastline, 1,300 miles, is low too. NOAA reported in the scientific literature that 3,240 miles were oiled -- 2 1/2 times as much oiled coastline as reported by Exxon. Three times as much oil and 2 1/2 times as much (mostly public) oiled coastline justify three times as much penalty in my book -- for public and private property. This is a breach of public trust.

Second, the $5 billion punitive award was based on emotional trauma from damages through 1993. Publicly funded research in Prince William Sound between 1994 and 2000 found that oil was actually much more toxic than previously thought and that very low levels of oil reduce populations of coastal fish, birds and wildlife over time. Exxon scientists have attacked federal researchers to discredit their findings.

However, the National Research Council just released its updated book "Oil in the Sea," which supports the notion that oil is much more toxic than we thought.

These scientists based their findings on all credible oil research from the last 25 years. Significantly, Exxon's studies were not included in this book because Exxon's studies are not credible in the eyes of the scientific community.

Third, Exxon keeps referring to its "$2.2 billion cleanup" as evidence that the punitive damages should be reduced. However, court records of lawsuits filed by sick workers show that Exxon's cleanup made more than half of its 11,000 workers sick. Exxon failed to report 6,722 respiratory cases to state and federal agencies, but the press reported this story as early as 1999. By failing to report to government authorities, Exxon dodged the long-term health monitoring requirements for hazardous waste cleanups. Unfortunately, many people may be suffering debilitating health problems from their oil spill work, an issue Exxon continues to ignore.

Exxon's spill harmed thousands of people and dozens of communities. This spill continues to haunt our lives to this day in the form of socioeconomic trauma from lingering damages to our environment and fisheries; physical trauma from injured health; and emotional trauma from Exxon's ridiculous court delays and misleading public statements about how much it spilled and the health of our environment when we know better.

Even $5 billion won't bring justice, but it will go a long way toward bringing closure to this sorry event. The people involved in this lawsuit hope Judge Holland decides to keep the whole $5 billion award intact and send it back to the 9th Circuit without further delay.

Riki Ott is a former fisher "ma'am" and scientist from Cordova. She is a board member of the Alaska Forum for Environmental Responsibility.