frankEXXONVALDEZ


 * Title, Director, release year?**
 * Title:** Black Wave: The Legacy of the Exxon Valdez
 * Director:** Robert Cornellier
 * Released:** 2008


 * What is the central argument or narrative of the film?**

The central argument of the film that Robert Cornellier portrays is that the largest oil company in the world, ExxonMobil, cares nothing about the people of the world or about their lives as demonstrated by their lack of action to clean up the massive oil spill of the Exxon Valdez in Cordova, Alaska.


 * Who are the key social actors and stakeholders in the film?**

The key social actors and stakeholders in this film are ExxonMobil, the citizens of Cordova, Alaska, and the United States Judicial system. ExxonMobil caused the problem from the start of the spill by not responding adequately to the crisis at hand. Their lack of movement to control the situation led the citizens of Cordova to bring ExxonMobil to court. Finally, the judicial system plays a serious role from the view that it is because of them it took 20 years to get a settlement, while ExxonMobil continued to pocket more and more money.


 * What does the film convey about the matrix of factors that contribute to our dependence on oil?**

The film conveys a somewhat strong matrix of factors that contribute to our dependence on oil from the perspective that people cannot take a stand against the oil companies. For example, if US citizens wanted to boycott oil to show that they are not happy with how the company is being run or treating the people, it would have no effect on the oil companies. They would still make millions of dollars per day and the only people affected would be the citizens because our basic transportation and heat is all provided compliments of oil products.


 * What does the film convey about the matrix of problems caused by our dependence on oil?**

The film conveys strong matrix of problems caused by our dependence on oil from the point of view of the environment. When society really started rely on oil, more and more oil platforms, plants, and ships were being used and that only increases the chance of an accident occurring. One of the methods of increasing our accessibility to underground oil fields is by building the Great Alaskan Pipeline which cuts through the countryside of the Alaska going north to south from Prudhoe Bay to Valdez (near Cordova) where there is an oil plant. It is then loaded super tankers and taken to the states for use. All it takes for an oil spill is a small crack in the pipeline, a small leak at the plant, or in this case a massive spill in the bay. Exxon’s lack of response to the oil spill immediately after resulted in upwards of 38 million gallons of oil being spilled into the bay and landing on the shorelines up to 1,200 miles away. You saw oil covered animals and shorelines but it is the long term results that caused the greatest tragedy. With Cordova relying heavily on the fishing industry, most of the town went bankrupt because the pink salmon and the hearing were coming back diseased. After all this occurred and Exxon agreed to settling to $507 million (1/10 original amount), they are still the most prosperous company in the world and none of their shares ever went down because of the oil spill. Because of the US’s mainland citizen’s blinded views of where the oil //really// comes from, nothing ever came from the Exxon Valdez oil spill. It makes you wonder, if that oil spill were to occur in New York City or even Washington D.C., would the United States still rely so heavily on oil?


 * What does the film convey about the matrix of affects that would be mobilized by a shift away from oil?**

The film does not convey too much about the matrix of affects that would be mobilized by a shift away from oil, but you can speculate that a few things are certain to happen. The first is that the environment would be much better off because there would be less oil spills, less CO2 emissions from vehicles (because they would have to change), and overall the US would be a much cleaner country and a lot greener.


 * What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?**

The part of the film that I found most compelling is the fact that Exxon has been taking the court case above and beyond what is really being asked of them. I really don’t understand why Exxon found it logical to spend $400 million on legal actions, when they paid out $507 million for the settlement. More over the top is that first off, they had //no// action plan if there was an oil spill. How can you not have a plan and take all necessary actions to make sure that an oil spill does not happen especially when you know the extent of the consequences? Furthermore, I could not believe that Exxon would not pay the price of $5 billion for their accident, which got progressively worse because they had no action plan, when they earn that in a month.


 * What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why?**

The part of the film that I was not convinced by was the amount of hatred that the film was portraying towards ExxonMobil. There are always two sides to a story and, although Exxon denied any interviews for the film, it would be interesting to listen to their side and then compare the views.


 * What kinds of corrective action are suggested by the film? If the film itself does not suggest corrective action, describe actions that you can imagine being effective.**

The kind of corrective action that is suggested by the film is quite wide. From the environmental cleaning standpoint, there must be a firm set of rules that enforce how oil companies should be prepared at any moment for an oil spill. To start, the most effective method is to have vessels that have booms to contain it and methods of collecting it to minimize the amount of environmental damage. If there is damage and oil is on the shorelines, there must be an environmentally safe method of ridding everything of the contaminants, which I am not sure what would be most effective. The other area of corrective action that is not exactly suggested, rather inferred, is in the judicial system. Exxon’s executive stated that they would not pay a penny until they use all the methods possible to win the case, even if it means taking it to world court. If a case like this is able to be taken to world court, then there is a large problem with our Judicial system. Currently, ExxonMobile is stalling the case and just juicing the system by carrying out the case as it takes for the citizens of Cordova to either give up or lose funding. This is only happening because they have and endless amount of money and thus is unfair and unjust.


 * What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out?**

After viewing this film, I was compelled to look up standard specifications for the oil tankers. The Exxon Valdez had a 1” hull (which was acceptable at the time) which met code as it was a new vessel at only 3 years old. The tanker carried a grand total of 200,000 tons of crude oil within its hull. Currently, the largest tankers are the ULCC (ultra-large crude-oil carriers) TI class supertankers which carry upwards of 440,000 tons of oil; to put that in perspective that is 1.2 times the weight of the Empire State Building. With this massive increase in size, the hull size only doubled to 2”. Many of the current codes for tankers are based on their usage and what they are carrying so the specifications range quite a range, but no tankers’ hulls are less than 1” currently.