_________________________________________________________________________________________

___________

UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MARA

OIL AND GAS ENGINEERING
FACULTY OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING
POLLUTION CONTROL AND WASTE MANAGEMENT
(CGE 686)

EXXON VALDEZ

OIL SPILL
PREPARED FOR : PROF. MADYA. DR AYUB MD. SOM

SUBMISSION DATE : 6 MAY 2019

GROUP : EH2436

PREPARED BY :

NAME STUDENT ID

NURSHAZWANI SYUHADA BINTI AL BADRI 2016691734

SITI NUR IZZATY BINTI NAZAR 2016691684

NOOR SHAMIMI BINTI RAMLI 2016691668

AZIZAH BINTI ROSLAN 2016691724

1
TABLE OF CONTENT

TITLE PAGES

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 : Type of oils spilled 3-5

1.2 : Size of spill, the extend it affects the whole offshore or
onshore or coastal line

2. BACKGROUND OF THE EXXON VALDEZ OIL SPILL

2.1 Exact location of the spill 5

2.2 Country affected
2.3 Company involved

3. IMPACT OF THE EXXON VALDEZ OIL SPILL

6-10
3.1 Vulnerability of local plants and animals
3.2 Weather, sea conditions and time of the year

4. MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUES OF THE EXXON

VALDEZ OIL SPILL
11-12
4.1 Clean-up techniques
4.2 Oil spill response teams

5. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THIS

13
DISASTER NOT TO HAPPEN AGAIN IN FUTURE

6. REFERENCES 14

2
1. INTRODUCTION

The Exxon Valdez oil spill was a manmade disaster that occurred when the supertanker
Exxon Valdez, owned and operated by the Exxon Corporation, runs aground on a reef in
Prince William Sound in southern Alaska on March 24, 1989. It was the worst oil spill in
United State history until the Deepwater Horizon oil spill occurred in 2010 (History.com
Editors, 2009).

Figure 1

Zoomed in version of Southern Alaska, Prince William Sound, and the Gulf of Alaska

1.1 : Type of oils spilled

Chronologically,on March 23, 1989 the Exxon Valdez an oil supertanker operated by
Exxon and under the command of Captain Joseph J. Hazelwood left the port of Valdez
headed for Long beach, CA with 53,094,510 gallons of crude oil on board. Shortly after
midnight on March 24, 1989, the supertanker collided with Bligh Reef, a well known
navigation hazard, ruptured eight of its 11 cargo tanks(The Whole Truth Campaign, 2008).

Figure 2

An oil slick swirls over Prince William Sound, Alaska, on April 2, 1989, about 50 miles from
where the tanker Exxon Valdez ran aground.

3
1.2 : Size of Spill, The Extend It Affects The Whole Offshore or Onshore or Coastal
Line

The result was catastrophic.An estimated 11 million gallons of oil eventually spilled into
the pristine waters of Prince William Sound. Although the spill was radioed in shortly after
the collision Exxon’s response was slow. In fact, there was no recovery effort for three days
while Exxon searched for clean-up equipment. During that time millions of gallons of oil
began to spread down the coast (The Whole Truth Campaign, 2008).

Days later as the clean-up effort began the oil slick was no longer containable. Initial
attempts to contain the oil failed,wind and currents spread the oil more than 100 miles from
its source. In the months that followed, the oil slick spread and eventually polluting more
than 700 miles of coastline. It eventually extended 470 miles to the southwest, contaminated
hundreds of miles of coastline and utterly destroyed the ecosystem (The Whole Truth
Campaign, 2008).

Figure 3 Figure 4

High winds on Prince William Sound Spilled oil from the grounded ExxonValdez

push crude oil up into an inlet on spread into Prince William Sound.

Squire Island on April 10, 1989.

Though Exxon pledged to thoroughly clean up the spill, there remain thousands of
gallons of oil in Prince William Sound that aren’t being removed. According to the EVOSTC,
“This Exxon Valdez oil is decreasing at a rate of zero to four percent per year. At this rate,
the remaining oil will take decades and possibly centuries to disappear entirely.” The
environmental consequences were devastating; the EVOSTC estimates that the spill killed
“250,000 seabirds, 2,800 sea otters, 300 harbor seals, 250 bald eagles, up to 22 killer
whales, and billions of salmon and herring eggs.” (Alan Taylor, 2014).The Exxon Valdez oil

4
slick covered 1,300 miles of coastline. Nearly 30 years later, pockets of crude oil remain in
some locations (History.com Editors, 2009).

2. BACKGROUND OF THE EXXON VALDEZ OIL SPILL

2.1 Exact Location of Oil Spill

Eleven million gallons (257,000 barrels) of Alaska North Slope crude oil spilled into the
remote, pristine, resource-laden environment, less than 30 miles from Valdez. The oil fouled
approximately 1,300 miles of wildlife-abundant shoreline. Spilled oil damaged shoreline from
Bligh Reef to Kodiak Island and beyond. Oil washed up on shores near Chignik, as far as
470 miles from Bligh Reef, a distance comparable to that from Cape Cod to North Carolina.

Figure 5 : Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Area

Photo Credit: Composite done by the Exxon Valdez Trustee Council from an original map by
the Alaska Dept. of Environmental Conservation.
Description: Blue areas illustrate oil slick spread of 11,000 sq. miles.

Figure 6 : Map of Exxon Valdez Oil Spill

5
2.2 The country affect

The Exxon Valdez oil spill was a manmade disaster that occurred when Exxon Valdez, an
oil tanker owned by the Exxon Shipping Company. After the spill, Exxon Valdez returned to
service under a different name, operating for more than two decades as an oil tanker and
ore carrier. The Alyeska Pipeline Company also cooperate with the Exxon corporation.

Exxon itself was condemned by the National Transportation Safety Board and in early
1991 agreed under pressure from environmental groups to pay a penalty of $100 million and
provide $1 billion over a 10-year period for the cost of the cleanup (History.com.Editors,
2009).

2.3 The country involved

The history of the spill really began back in 1973 when Congress authorized the Trans-
Alaska pipeline. This allowed oil companies including Exxon to access the crude oil from
Alaska’s North Slope and transport it to the lower 48 states.

6
3. IMPACT OF THE EXXON VALDEZ OIL SPILL

3.1 Vulnerability of Local Plants and Animals

Aquatic environments are made up of complex interrelations between plant and animal
species and their physical environment. Harm to the physical environment will often lead to
harm for one or more species in a food chain, which may lead to damage for other species
further up the chain. Where an organism spends most of its time—in open water, near
coastal areas, or on the shoreline—will determine the effects an oil spill is likely to have on
that organism. In open water, fish and whales have the ability to swim away from a spill by
going deeper in the water or further out to sea, reducing the likelihood that they will be
harmed by even a major spill. Aquatic animals that generally live closer to shore, such as
turtles, seals, and dolphins, risk contamination by oil that washes onto beaches or by
consuming oil-contaminated prey. In shallow waters, oil may harm sea grasses and kelp
beds, which are used for food, shelter, and nesting sites by many different species. Spilled
oil and clean up operations can threaten different types of aquatic habitats, with different
results.

Coral reefs are important nurseries for shrimp, fish, and other animals as well as
recreational attractions for divers. Coral reefs and the aquatic organisms that live within and
around them are at risk from exposure to the toxic substances within oil as well as
smothering. Exposed sandy, gravel, or cobble beaches are usually cleaned by manual
techniques. Although oil can soak into sand and gravel, few organisms live full-time in this
habitat, so the risk to animal life or the food chain is less than in other habitats, such as tidal
flats. Sheltered beaches have very little wave action to encourage natural dispersion. If
timely clean-up efforts are not begun, oil may remain stranded on these beaches for years.
Tidal flats are broad, low-tide zones, usually containing rich plant, animal, and bird
communities. Deposited oil may seep into the muddy bottoms of these flats, creating
potentially harmful effects on the ecology of the area.

Salt marshes are found in sheltered waters in cold and temperate areas. They host a
variety of plant, bird, and mammal life. Marsh vegetation, especially root systems, is easily
damaged by fresh light oils. Mangrove forests are located in tropical regions and are home
to a diversity of plant and animal life. Mangrove trees have long roots, called prop roots, that
stick out well above the water level and help to hold the mangrove tree in place. A coating of
oil on these prop roots can be fatal to the mangrove tree, and because they grow so slowly,
replacing a mangrove tree can take decades. Marshes and swamps with little water

7
movement are likely to incur more severe impacts than flowing water. In calm water
conditions, the affected habitat may take years to restore. Other standing water bodies, such
as inland lakes and ponds, are home to a variety of birds, mammals, and fish. The human
food chain can be affected by spills in these environments. River habitats may be less
severely affected by spills than standing water bodies because of water movement.
However, spills in these water bodies can affect plants, grasses, and mosses that grow in
the environment. When rivers are used as drinking water sources, oil spills on rivers can
pose direct threats to human health.

An oil spill can harm birds and mammals in several ways, direct physical contact, toxic
contamination, destruction of food sources and habitats, and reproductive problems.
Physical contact , when fur or feathers come into contact with oil, they get matted down. This
matting causes fur and feathers to lose their insulating properties, placing animals at risk of
freezing to death. For birds, the risk of drowning increases, as the complex structure of their
feathers that allows them to float or to fly becomes damaged. Toxic contamination , some
species are susceptible to the toxic effects of inhaled oil vapors. Oil vapors can cause
damage to the animal’s central nervous system, liver, and lungs.

Animals are also at risk from ingesting oil, which can reduce the animal’s ability to eat or
digest its food by damaging cells in the intestinal tract. Destruction of food resources and
habitats, even species which are not directly in contact with oil can be harmed by a spill.
Predators that consume contaminated prey can be exposed to oil through ingestion.
Because oil contamination gives fish and other animals unpleasant tastes and smells,
predators will sometimes refuse to eat their prey and will begin to starve. Sometimes a local
population of prey organisms is destroyed, leaving no food resources for predators.
Depending on the environmental conditions, the spilled oil may linger in the environment for
long periods of time, adding to the detrimental effects. In calm water conditions, oil that
interacts with rocks or sediments can remain in the environment indefinitely. Reproductive
problems – Oil can be transferred from birds’ plumage to the eggs they are hatching. Oil can
smother eggs by sealing pores in the eggs and preventing gas exchange. Scientists have
also observed developmental effects in bird embryos that were exposed to oil. Also, the
number of breeding animals and the nesting habitats can be reduced by the spill. Long-term
reproductive problems have also been shown in some studies in animals that have been
exposed to oil.

8
3.2 Weather, Sea Conditions and Time Of The Year

What exactly happened when the Exxon Valdez ran aground?

Up there in the spring, the Columbia Glacier, which empties into Prince William Sound, is
calving. Pieces of ice break off and then drift into the shipping channel that brings ships in
and out of the Port of Valdez. So the common maneuver was to sail out of the shipping
channel to pass these ice floats, which can’t be detected reliably on the radar. Then the ship
must make a course change back into the shipping channel, at a predetermined time and
pace yourself, otherwise a ship may go aground on Bligh Reef [reef off the coast of Bligh
Island in Prince William Sound named after Bounty officer William Bligh]. And that’s what
didn’t happen. The crew didn’t execute the turn into the channel at the right time and by the
time they realized they missed it, it was too late (Tim Donney, former Global Head of Marine
Risk Consulting at Allianz Global Corporate & Specialty (AGCS), 2014).

The findings of dozens of previous studies about the Exxon Valdez showed that oil has
persisted in surprisingly large quantities for years after the Exxon Valdez spill in subsurface
reservoirs under coarse intertidal sediments. This oil was sequestered in conditions where
weathering by wave action, light and bacteria was inhibited, and toxicity remained for a
decade or more (Charles H. Peterson et.al , 2003).

The chronology of Exxon Valdez Oil Spill

Exxon Valdez, an oil tanker owned by the Exxon Shipping Company, spilled 11 million
gallons of crude oil into Alaska’s Prince William Sound on March 24, 1989. The Exxon
Valdez oil slick covered 1,300 miles of coastline and killed hundreds of thousands of
seabirds, otters, seals and whales. Nearly 30 years later, pockets of crude oil remain in
some locations.

No human lives were lost as a direct result of the disaster, though four deaths were
associated with the cleanup effort. Indirectly, however, the human and natural losses were
immense - to fisheries, subsistence livelihoods, tourism, wildlife.

The people of Alaska's Southcentral coast - not to mention Exxon and the Alyeska
Pipeline Service Company - would come to pay a heavy price. The American people,
increasingly anxious over environmental degradation and devoted to their image of Alaska's
wilderness, reacted with anger.

The Exxon Valdez had reached the Alyeska Marine Terminal at 11:30 p.m. on March 22
to take on cargo. It carried a crew of 19 plus the captain. Third Mate Gregory Cousins, who

9
became a central figure in the grounding, was relieved of watch duty at 11:50 p.m. Ship and
terminal crews began loading crude oil onto the tanker at 5:05 a.m. on March 23 and
increased loading to its full rate of 100,000 barrels an hour by 5:30 a.m

The Exxon Valdez slipped its last mooring line at 9:12 p.m. and, with the assistance of
two tugboats, began maneuvering away from the berth. The tanker's deck log shows it was
clear of the dock at 9:21 p.m.

Dock to grounding

The ship was under the direction of pilot Murphy and accompanied by a single tug for the
passage through Valdez Narrows, the constricted harbor entrance about 7 miles from the
berth. According to Murphy, Hazelwood left the bridge at 9:35 p.m. and did not return until
about 11:10 p.m., even though Exxon company policy requires two ship's officers on the
bridge during transit of Valdez Narrows.

At 11:30 p.m. Hazelwood informed the Valdez traffic center that he was turning the ship
toward the east on a heading of 200 degrees and reducing speed to "wind my way through
the ice" (engine logs, however, show the vessel's speed continued to increase).

On the rocks

The vessel came to rest facing roughly southwest, perched across its middle on a
pinnacle of Bligh Reef. Eight of 11 cargo tanks were punctured. Weather conditions at the
site were, reported to be 33 degrees F, slight drizzle rain/snow mixed, north winds at 10
knots and visibility 10 miles at the time of the grounding.

The Exxon Valdez nightmare had begun. Hazelwood - perhaps drunk, certainly facing a
position of great difficulty and confusion - would struggle vainly to power the ship off its perch
on Bligh Reef. The response capabilities of Alyeska Pipeline Service Company to deal with
the spreading sea of oil would be tested and found to be both unexpectedly slow and
woefully inadequate.

After feeling the grounding Hazelwood rushed to the bridge, arriving as the ship came to
rest. He immediately gave a series of rudder orders in an attempt to free the vessel, and
power to the ship's engine remained in the "load program up" condition for about 15 minutes
after impact. Nonetheless, Hazelwood kept the engine running until 1:41 a.m., when he
finally abandoned efforts to get the vessel off the reef.

10
4. MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUES OF THE EXXON VALDEZ OIL SPILL

4.1 The Effectiveness of Clean-up Techniques

The overall clean-up activity took around three years from 1989 to 1992. But, until now,
they still keep on eye the coastline to detect any late-emerging effects of the oil spill. (Dan,
2018) The U.S. Coast Guard had announced that the clean-up complete in 1992. This clean-
up eventually involved more than 11,000 Alaskan residents and thousands of Exxon and
contractor personnel.

There are three techniques were tried in the effort to clean up the spill:

Burning

At the early stage of the spill, they were conducted the trial burn. A ship was attached
with two ends of the booms and a fire-resistant boom was placed on tow lines. The two ships
attached with the boom will moved slowly throughout the main portion of the slick until the
boom was full of oil. Then, the ships were towed the boom away from the slick and the oil
was ignited. The fire did not endanger between main slick and the Exxon Valdez because
there was a distance separating between them. There was no additional burning attempted
in this clean-up effort because of the adverse weather.

Mechanical Clean-up

Figure: Oil booms help contain the oil

Mechanical clean-up was begin shortly after the spill by using booms and skimmers.
However, through the first 24 hours, the skimmers were not accessible for following the spill.
The equipment was clog by thick oil and heavy kelp. More time consuming to repairs the
damaged skimmers. The oil’s weight and thickness make the transferring process oil from
non-permanent storage vessels into more permanent containers also tougher. The recovery
actions were slowed down due to the continued bad weather.

11
Chemical Dispersants

Furthermore, the dispersants trial application was performed. The use of dispersants
proved to be contentious. Due to the lack of dispersant available in Valdez and no
application equipment or aircraft, a private company had applied dispersants on March 24,
with a helicopter and dispersant bucket. Eventually, the dispersant were ineffective because
there was not enough wave action to mix the dispersant with the oil in the water. (EPA,
2017)

Later, they found that aggressive washing with high-pressure, hot water hoses was
successful in removing oil, but did even more ecological damage by killing the remaining
plants and animals in the process. (History.com, 2018)

4.2 The Effectiveness of Oil Spill Response Teams

From the investigation, the captain of Exxon Valdez, Joseph Hazelwood had been
drinking and had permitted an unlicensed third mate to guide the huge ship. In March 1990,
Hazelwood was cleared of felony charges. He was convicted of a single charge of wrong
doing negligence, fined $50,000, and ordered to perform 1,000 hours of community service.

The clean-up were involving Exxon employees, federal responders and more than 11,000
Alaska residents. The clean-up cost about $2 billion and for habitat restoration and personal
damages about $1.8 billion were payed by Exxon. (History.com, 2018)

Oil pollution act 1990

Following the Exxon Valdez oil spill, the U.S. Congress passed the Oil Pollution Act of
1990, which President George H.W. Bush signed into law that year. This law will increased
sanction for companies responsible for oil spills and needed that all oil tankers in United
States waters have a double hull. (History.com, 2018) Today, tank hulls give better defence
against spills resulting from a similar accident, and communications between vessel captains
and vessel traffic centers have improved to make for safer sailing. (EPA, 2017)

12
5. CONLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

As a conclusion, the effects of this disaster (as long with many others) could have been
reduced radically or even prevented if they had only followed security protocol and
requirements for their equipment.  For example, if the Valdez had actually had a double hull
like they promised it would, around 60% less oil would have spilled.  If the number of crew
members of the tanker had been what it should be, the responses to the ship’s turn might
have been accomplished and if the captain had not been under the influence of alcohol all
this could have been avoided.

All the conditions the tanker was under went against common sense when it comes
down to safety. There is a reason why all those security measurements had to be taken.  It
comes to show that all this, the tanker’s lack of a double hull, the cut in crew, might have
come from greed.  But in the end it is many times less expensive to prevent than to fix.
 

For recommendation, we can set up shipping corridor that are charted to modern
standards and avoid sensitive marine habitats and subsistence use area. We can ban ship’s
use and carriage for use of heavy fuel oil. Next, we can improve our ability to respond
quickly and effectively to vessel in distress, including increase search and rescue capacity
and providing oil spill clean up equipment and training. Then, we can make the most of new
and emerging maritime communication and navigation technology to help ships steer clear
of danger and we can require more stringent rules about air and water pollution from vessels
in the Arctic.

13
6. REFERENCES

1. Editors, History.com, 24 November 2009, Exxon Valdez Crashes, Causing One of

The Worst Oil Spills in History.

Link : https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/exxon-valdez-runs-aground

2. Alan Taylor, 24 March 2014, Remembering the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill.

Link : https://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2014/03/remembering-the-exxon-valdez-oil-
spill/100703/

3. The Whole Truth Campaign, 2008, History of The Exxon Valdez Oil Spill.
Link : www.wholetruth.net/history.htm

4. Editors, History.com, 9 March 2018 “Exxon Valdez Oil Spill.” History.com, A&E
Television Networks.
Link : www.history.com/topics/1980s/exxon-valdez-oil-spill.

5. Dan. Marine Insight, 26 November 2018, “The Complete Story of the Exxon Valdez
Oil Spill.”
Link : www.marineinsight.com/maritime-history/the-complete-story-of-the-exxon-
valdez-oil-spill/.

6. “Exxon Valdez Spill Profile.” EPA, Environmental Protection Agency, 19 Jan. 2017
Link : www.epa.gov/emergency-response/exxon-valdez-spill-profile.

7. Tim Donney et. al , 2014,Twenty-five years after the Exxon Valdez oil spill, experts
discuss the lessons learned from the biggest tanker disaster in history.

Link : https://www.allianz.com/en/press/extra/knowledge/mobility/140807-lessons-
learned-from-exxon-valdez.html

8. State of Alaska , February 1990, Alaska Oil Spill Commission.

Link : https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/exxon-valdez-runs-aground

14