Hot on HuffPost:

See More Stories

Two Oil Spills, Two Government Responses: Lessons From the BP and Exxon Valdez Disasters

1 year ago
  0 Comments Say Something  »
Text Size
A little after midnight on May 24, 1989, the Exxon Valdez struck a reef in Prince William Sound, Alaska. An estimated 11 million gallons of crude oil spilled from the 978-foot oil tanker, wreaking devastation on wildlife and residents along 350 miles of shoreline.

More than two decades later, an offshore oil rig explosion in the Gulf of Mexico killed 11 workers and injured 17 others. Thousands of jobs were lost as oil leaked for months; the environmental impact was massive and is still being assessed. The BP spill escalated public distrust of the oil industry and the government, which was seen as slow to respond.

Both events brought about government action in their wake, largely because of public outcry. In the former instance, critics complained that the government did too little; this time, some critics complain that it did too much, resulting in a lack of consistency, particularly with regard to moratoriums instituted on offshore drilling.

Recently, the Obama administration declared a new moratorium on drilling off the Atlantic coast and in the eastern Gulf of Mexico near Florida, citing safety concerns. This came following Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar's decision to lift a six-month deep-water drilling moratorium in the Gulf, begun at the end of May.

"It's all political -- none of it will help the people," said Rory Cooper, a former senior policy adviser at the Department of Energy and director of strategic communications at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank. "The Obama administration, from the beginning, never had any advisers with an energy background telling them an appropriate response to the oil spill."

The newest moratorium is expected to last at least until 2017, and will suspend action on 33 exploratory drilling operations in the Gulf. It also affects pending lease sales and drilling off the Virginia coast and in the Arctic.

Some see the new moratorium as reflecting a shift in national policy, an impression that elicits two differing responses.

"I think it's the administration hitting the reset button on offshore drilling expansion," said Elgie Holstein, senior director for strategic planning in the Environmental Defense Fund's Land, Water & Wildlife program. Holstein, a former senior adviser to Obama's presidential campaign on energy and environmental policy, believes the move indicates a push for alternative energy sources, and said the administration's economists are convinced that building a more sustainable and greener energy future will jump-start new industries and spur job creation.

A case in point: Energy Secretary Steven Chu recently said that China's success creating innovative and clean energy industries means that the United States must do so in order to compete on the world front for jobs.
But this apparent push, according to Cooper, is not good news. "What they're trying to do is to make it so hard to produce oil domestically that we have no alternative choice [but renewable energy]," he said. "Instead of a rational, balanced approach that protects the environment and the local economy, we got a haphazard approach that hurts both the environment and the local economy."

Two decades ago, the chorus of complaints sounded a different set of notes, unrelated to national policy. The Exxon Valdez disaster showed a failure on the part of government to do enough for residents, according to Duane Gill, who is on a research team investigating that spill's impact on people. "The main point of contention for me is that both the state and federal government settled [damage claims] early," said Gill, who is also the head of the department of sociology at Oklahoma State University. "They went ahead and settled with Exxon and left the citizens in their class-action lawsuit to pursue their own damage awards."

The $1 billion government settlement of 1991 was criticized because it was primarily used to restore damaged ecosystems, without provisions to restore damaged communities or the lives of the people who lived and worked in Alaska.

Residents went to court themselves. After nearly 20 years of back-and-forth, 33,000 plaintiffs were awarded, in June 2008, an estimated $500 million dollars in punitive damages. That works out to approximately $15,000 per person,

Immediately after the BP spill, the government held the company responsible for all financial obligations and BP created a $20 billion emergency assistance fund. The administration brought in Kenneth Feinberg, who also headed the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund, to handle this one. Approximately 450,000 people have applied, and in late November final settlements began to be disbursed. According to the BP Gulf Response website, approximately $2.2 billion has already been paid to date to more than 150,000 individuals and businesses.

BP also invested $500 million in the Gulf Research Institute, which will assess the impact of the disaster on the environment and public health in the Gulf.

However, not everyone is happy with the process. A major point of contention is the complicated and onerous application. Potentially even more frustrating is the time lag in receiving payment because some applications lack proper documentation; without this documentation, claims can be rejected. Victims also have to waive their rights to sue if they accept a settlement.

Though one disaster showed a lack of government intervention and the other showed much more of it, it seems that the people affected suffer regardless.

"Some data we've collected indicate that levels of psychological stress in communities affected by the BP oil spill are just as high as they were in communities after the Exxon Valdez oil spill," Gill said. "If people aren't treated fairly and justly for their damages in the BP spill, I would anticipate a continued level of stress. The precedent is [already] there for any corporation to drag out the litigation."

Our New Approach to Comments

In an effort to encourage the same level of civil dialogue among Politics Daily’s readers that we expect of our writers – a “civilogue,” to use the term coined by PD’s Jeffrey Weiss – we are requiring commenters to use their AOL or AIM screen names to submit a comment, and we are reading all comments before publishing them. Personal attacks (on writers, other readers, Nancy Pelosi, George W. Bush, or anyone at all) and comments that are not productive additions to the conversation will not be published, period, to make room for a discussion among those with ideas to kick around. Please read our Help and Feedback section for more info.

Add a Comment

*0 / 3000 Character Maximum Comment Moderation Enabled. Your comment will appear after it is cleared by an editor.

6 Comments

Filter by:
JOHN

Please, get your facts straight. China opens a new coal powered plant EVERY WEEK. They have gone from the #1 EXPORTER to the #1 IMPORTER of coal. Anyone that believes China is "going green" has never been there. The drilling ban in the Gulf will not make us any greener, it will only lead to more importation. If we grow wind and solar by 5 times, it will be a whopping 10% of our needs. We have enough natural gas, oil and possible nuclear power to last for hundreds of years without massive government subsidies. Even Al Gore admitted that government mandated Ethanol has been a collassal blunder that has driven food prices worldwide to rise dramatically.

December 13 2010 at 4:05 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
KSMITHSPECTRUM

What we have learned is to not trust those who hate the Human Race. If we would have stayed on our land and produced oil in a safe manor we would not have had these disasters. Why are we so far from our homes in search of fuel and natural gas. Answer enviormental greed. Those that take from the human Race.

December 13 2010 at 2:10 PM Report abuse -2 rate up rate down Reply
jsbseven

YES HE STOPPED US MEN FROM DRILLING IN THE GULF AND YET HE GAVE SOUTH AMERICAN COUNTRIES BILLIONS TO DRILL IN THE GULF GUESS WHAT THEY WILL STICK IT TO US WHEN THEY SELL US THE THE OIL WE PAID TO DRILL FOR AND IF THEY HAVE A SPILL GUESS WHO WILL PAY IT WILL BE US

December 13 2010 at 2:09 PM Report abuse +2 rate up rate down Reply
Frank Van Delden

The lessons learned here is there shall be more in the future.

December 13 2010 at 12:13 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
arklight99

As long as we have NAFTA, GATT and WTO the US can NEVER compete in the global marketplace; any fool knows that. As for the offshore drilling moratoria, every country upon the planet whe can do so is drilling in the Gulf of Mexico and, you know what? they don't have American inspectors on hand to keep 'em honest. Well, actually, neither did BP with the Deepwater Horizon rig; so far, in all of the time that it existed, there was either zero, or one, inspection, with the certification daisy chained to cover the ensuing inspecton dates that were never met. The blowout preventer was a busted used one, and the field repairs, reportedly, make the darned thing attempt to work backwards, and the sonic actuator was never installed below, although the controls, apparently, were hooked up on board the rig. This piece of equipment was, I suspect, wired to show that it was actually connected to equipment attached to the blowout preventer, so the 11 men murdered by BP were killed trying to get something to work that didn't even exist. Oh, yeah - - the Chinese are going full tilt boogie in the Gulf, and you know what? the don't give a damn about American inspections or EPA.

December 13 2010 at 11:31 AM Report abuse +2 rate up rate down Reply
Kenneth

They are called accidents. You clean them up as best as possibly and move on and mother nature will do the rest. The earth has its own self repair system. As for stopping the drilling it was the stupidest thing our government could do. It added to unemployment and is also fueling the increase of gas price at the pumps.The last thing this weak economy needs is higher costs for basic needs. Our government should place tighter regulations on the oil companies. They make their money refining oil and selling the finished products not from the sale of crude oil. With that in mind why do we depend on 65% foreign oil and at the same time sell US oil to other countries. We need to get more like other countries take care of this countries needs and worry about the others later. New rules all US oil states in the US . Oil companies can only sell to other countries after US needs are met. With all the present oil wells that are operational and those drilled and capped we have enough oil to run this country for 200 years. Taking the US off the world oil market would place us back on the supply and demand system which would drive the prices at the pumps down allowing people to have more money for other things.Oil companies would still be able to make their huge profits on all the products that come from the refining process.

December 13 2010 at 10:46 AM Report abuse +2 rate up rate down Reply

Follow Politics Daily

  • Comics
robert-and-donna-trussell
CHAOS THEORY
Featuring political comics by Robert and Donna TrussellMore>>
  • Woman UP Video
politics daily videos
Weekly Videos
Woman Up, Politics Daily's Online Sunday ShowMore»
politics daily videos
TV Appearances
Showcasing appearances by Politics Daily staff and contributors.More>>

News From Our Partners