RosenbergExxonValdez

Black Wave: The Legacy of The Exxon Valdez

The film //Black Wave: The Legacy of the Exxon Valdez//, released in 2008 and directed by Robert Cornellier, depicts the hardships and immeasurable costs inflicted upon communities in Alaska as a result of the oil spill of 1989. Throughout the piece, it is suggested that the lack of advance preparation of oil companies such as Exxon, in addition to the neglect in preparing a cleanup plan, has exacerbated the struggles of the communities beyond what would have otherwise been expected in the face of such a calamity. As a result of the environmental damage inflicted upon the region, it is demonstrated that communities have lost access to natural resources which have comprised their livelihood, and have seen the social structures within them disintegrate in the face of these difficulties and the inability to gain financial reparation from the corporation.

In particular, the film focuses on the small town of Cordova, Alaska, which had relied on the fishing permit system, in addition to fisheries and canaries to sustain its livelihood. Local towns such as these have been especially affected by the oil spill, and have seen their entire means of sustenance vanish over the years since the disaster. In a similar sense, citizens of nearby regions such as the West Coast of the United States retain related interests, since their proximity to the process of oil transportation renders them equally vulnerable to such debilitating spills in the event of breakdowns in safety.

On the other hand, large oil corporations such as Exxon retain the motive of profit maximization, which had led them to cut important safety measures in the name of cost reduction, including double bottom hulls. In the response to the spill, it was more concerned with preserving its public image, and expended hundreds of millions of dollars on legal fees and public relations campaigns to perpetuate such and combat the class action lawsuits brought against it. At the interface between these stakeholders are the federal and state governments, which although concerned about the welfare of their citizens, are also interested in preserving the economic well being of their entities. A striking example of this is demonstrated in the film, in which the United States Congress passed legislation overruling an Alaskan court and permitting the construction of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline in response to OPEC pressures following the Yom Kippur War of 1973. In contrast, however, these governments also have a role in preserving the social responsibility of corporations, whether through funding of inspection stations at Valdez port or through awarding of punitive damages in response to failures to maintain these practices. With such conflicting interests at stake, it seems inevitable that this stakeholder will be torn between the previous perspectives in assessing its proper course of action. In terms of those factors which further our dependence on oil, it is suggested primarily by the piece that a combination of corporate greed, in addition to our ever increasing energy requirements has tied us to fossil fuels. Speeches from former United States President Richard Nixon are highlighted which signify the economic vulnerability to foreign purchases of petroleum, and suggest that the United States was hoping to turn inwards towards regions such as Alaska to wean this dependence. However, there is clear emphasis of a financial incentive as well. Although profits of Exxon were $5.2 Billion in 1989, they had swelled to over $40 Billion in 2007. While part of this results from rising prices, it is clear too that the breadth and depth of these operations has swelled. In 1999, Exxon merged with Mobil, reforming the two largest pieces of the former Standard Oil Company as a single entity. In considering such, it is clear that these corporations do not want to wean our dependence on oil in general, and an elaborate public relations campaign has been carried out to prevent such. Shareholder meetings, town hall meetings in Cordova, among others are depicted as means by which corporations engage in these kinds of practices. With the ultimate reduction of punitive damages at the end of the film as of 2008, it is even suggested that oil corporations may have some sway with governments through lobbying efforts which has permitted them to expand these agendas with greater impunity.

In another sense, it is clear that the dangers associated with oil contamination and pollution, in addition to the potential for corruption are large contributors to the matrix of problems generated by our dependence on oil. As a result of the Exxon Valdez Spill, fishing has lost profitability for many of the local inhabitants. Permits which had once sold for as much as $300,000 were now worth only $47,000, and this loss of collateral has forced some fishermen to sacrifice their boats and livelihood in the name of self preservation as many have struggled to make even $20,000 per year in income. Related to such, populations of herring have still not recovered from the damages caused by PAH’s in the spilt petroleum, and others such as the pink salmon have taken many years to bounce back. These economic costs have further contributed to human costs, among them what is suggested to be a stress level for 20-25% of the population of Cordova typically common among rape victims 6 months after the crime, in addition to about 12 suicides which sociologists have attributed to the spill and its results. Numerous cleanup workers have been sickened by chemicals such as Inipol EAP 22, which is additionally no longer manufactured due to the danger associated with its use. These dangers are also likely to remain in the absence of enhanced safety measures and oversight of oil activities. It was estimated within the film that there had been 500 tanker spills worldwide since the incident, which have discharged 1.5 million tons of oil across them, or over forty times the Exxon Valdez Spill. Clearly the danger of such an event happening in a more populated region is of great concern moving forward.

In addition, the corruption fueled by oil, though mostly implied in the film, is a serious problem associated with this dependence. As a result of its size and financial might, Exxon was able to continuously appeal decisions against it in the court system until punitive damages were reduced from $5 Billion in 1994 down to only $507 million in 2008, which is further compounded by the fact that such figures are not inflation-adjusted. It is also suggested that the process of lax oversight, fueled by a cut in funding and staff at the Valdez terminal, was allowing oil spill recovery equipment and preparations to be outdated, and possibly helping those in the industry to dodge these regulations as well. Beyond the less visible elements, company medical records were sealed by courts until 2023 in response to lawsuits brought by cleanup workers, which begs the question of whether these officials had any personal stakes in these corporations.

In contrast to the previous features, the film makes little distinction of how a mobilization away from oil would take place, or what its effects might be. However, it is suggested through the examples presented in the film that this may be accomplished in some sense by enforcing a greater standard of social responsibility upon corporations. Perhaps requiring these organizations to show greater deference to climate change research may ultimately require them to begin to invest in the kind of inquiry necessary to generate such a shift. Additionally, it is implied that even if such metamorphosis were to take place, its effects may not be felt for many years due to the already substantial environmental damage already incurred.

Within the framework of the piece, I found the demonstration of how life had been altered within the community of Cordova, Alaska to be its most compelling element. While one can conjecture about how a community may be affected by such an event, seeing the human tragedy and hearing more concrete figures really paint a disheartening picture of the future of those in the region. Witnessing the emotion in the songs of the O’Toole daughter, seeing the disrepair of once prosperous canneries, and being provided with the incomes of these fishermen helps to put one in the shoes of those with whose lives we could not possibly empathize. The health problems faced by those involved with the recovery effort are also difficult to believe, and one man currently living in Florida is shown to be taking multiple medicines for a variety of disorders related to central nervous system damage caused by the chemicals utilized by Exxon. From this tragedy, the human costs are great and obvious, and it is this that the film draws out into the open and emphasizes most to elicit an emotional response from the viewer. On the other hand, I was less convinced by the claim that Exxon deliberately placed people in harm’s way in its attempts at public relations during the cleanup effort. It seems more likely that in the absence of technological and logistical planning as was suggested by the cut in funding to the Valdez terminal, the corporation was simply unprepared to deal with an event of such a magnitude. As the head of public relations for Exxon stated at the town hall meeting in Cordova, they did not have any of their own boats to contribute to the effort, which suggests that the less formal channels through which they had to organize the recovery may have left open means for poor communication among the various factions involved. However, I do believe that they knew of the dangers of some of the chemicals utilized as dispersants, as evidenced by the claims of one captain who was told to “not worry about it” when questioning whether it was safe to fish in waters which had been treated with these products. In this regard, they were significantly liable for the health effects felt in the aftermath, but I do not believe that they had carried out such policies with the malicious intent suggested by the film.

In contrast to the complexity of the damages caused, the corrective actions suggested by the film are simple and obvious, yet difficult to implement in practice. The main failure championed by the film is that of the regulatory regime, and it is implied that proper enforcement of safety measures such as double hulls, the maintenance of contingency plans for disasters, and a general environment in which safety is rewarded rather than branded as costly would help to enhance the self-responsibility necessary for corporations to enforce themselves. From such a perspective, the federal government is represented as not doing enough to punish violators of these measures, through its eventual reduction of punitive damages faced in the aftermath of the spill. It is also suggested that more research needs to be carried out as to the dangers of the toxic constituents of petroleum and chemicals used to disperse it, and that the Exxon Valdez Spill became a scientific starting point to begin to examine the effects of these chemicals on the local environment. As such a large entity, it is mentioned that citizens are the primary vehicle of bringing about such change, but the film also lamented that this outcry typically does not occur until after a major disaster has already occurred. With such difficulty in mobilizing these kinds of change, the piece seems to believe that more disasters of the kind witnessed in 1989 are inevitable in the coming years, and the Deepwater Horizon Spill likely has confirmed such a notion.

In viewing this film, I was compelled to seek out additional information regarding the process of inflicting punitive damages upon the Exxon Corporation. In particular, I was interested in what the rationale was for the reduction of such, as well as what measures had been implemented to adjust for potential inflation and interest collected on the funds which had not been disbursed initially. The following sources proved useful in this examination:

[]

[]

In the first source, Justice David Souter offers a rationale for this decision by suggesting that the corporation has already paid substantial costs as a result of the spill in compensating victims from economic loss. In addition, Exxon spokesmen claim that the corporation had already doled out over $3.4 Billion in cleanup and other such efforts, and that it should not have to continue to pay for the accident beyond these reasonable expenditures and the fines already enforced under legislation. In an interesting side note, it is also mentioned that Alaskans stood to receive about $15,000 each under this new settlement, as opposed to the nearly $75,000 they were expected to receive otherwise. Since the film stated that many fishermen in the region could barely make $20,000 per year, this is a staggering loss for those communities.

In the second source, an interesting addition is made to the punitive damages required of the corporation. In a measure which was not to be appealed by Exxon, a court ordered it to pay $470 Million of interest on the $507 Million in punitive damages already given to Alaskans, likely stemming from its profiting off of investment of the money during the appeals process. While this measure essentially doubled the average payment expected for Alaskans, it did not entirely settle the dispute, as Exxon had claimed it was owed nearly $70 Million in compensation for legal fees by the plaintiffs in the case. This case resulted from an appeal of previous rulings that the plaintiffs were not responsible for such recompense in lower courts.