Long Term Effects of an Oil Spill on the Environment and the Economy

Prior to March 24, 1989, few had heard of Prince William Sound. Today, however, people remember this heretofore unknown region of Alaska as the site of one of the most gruesome man-made disasters in recent history: the Exxon Valdez oil spill. The supertanker accidentally hit Bligh Reef, causing 11 million gallons of crude oil to spread over 400 miles from the tanker in less than a month's time. Despite efforts to clean up the spill as swiftly as possible, Exxon and its partners realized that mopping up an oil spill was not as easy as mopping up the kitchen floor mess. Oil from the damaged tanker irreparably damaged the pristine aquatic habitats in Prince William Sound. Efforts to reverse the effects of the spill were just as damaging.

The "oil spill" is one of the world's most ecologically damaging man-made disasters in recent history. The destruction one single tanker can wreak extensive havoc, as seen in the case of the Exxon Valdez oil spill. The ability of crude oil to swiftly suffocate large patches of the ocean and several coasts inevitably leads to the destruction of aquatic and coastal ecological systems. The Exxon Valdez case, for one, destroyed much of the diverse and marine habitats in Prince William Sound. The oil spill is a major disaster to contend with, one that is not as easily resolved by clearing debris. The effects of the oil spill are disastrous, dangerous, extensive and long-term.

Despite these effects, however, the response of most people to oil spills is one of passing curiosity. The media may provide extensive coverage of the disaster, but few people would react to an oil spill the same way they would react to news of a hurricane. Certainly, the fact that oil spills rarely result in the loss of human lives could be a factor in this situation. An oil spill, no matter how disastrous for the environment, does not have a chilling death toll of human lives. Few realize that apart from its impact on the environment, an oil spill also has significantly negative economic effects.

This study posits that the negative impact of an oil spill on the environment inevitably causes negative effects on the economy as well. To prove so, this study must begin by answering a few pertinent questions. What causes an oil spill, and how does it work? What are its negative effects on the environment? Lastly, how does its impact on the environment reflect on the economy? These are some of the questions that must be answered in order to provide a comprehensive and significant understanding of the effects of an oil spill on both the environment and the economy.

The mere mention of the words "oil spill" often conjures up one incident: the Exxon Valdez oil spill. On March 24, 1989, the tanker Exxon Valdez, carrying a massive amount of North Slope crude oil, ran aground on Blight Reef. To call the incident an "accident" would not only be an understatement, it would be an outright lie. The Exxon Valdez oil spill was the result of a negligent and irresponsible captain's miscalculations. Joseph Hazelwood, captain of the Exxon Valdez, had been drinking in one of the ports of Alaska prior to sailing. Drunk and slurring, the captain recklessly gave unusual instructions to the crew and eventually left the bridge to an inexperienced junior officer (Hamilton, 1999, p.223).

While navigating the tricky and jagged reefs of the western coast of Alaska, the ship eventually ran aground in Blight Reef, causing a massive oil spill that would overtake natural ecological systems from Prince William Sound to the Gulf of Alaska. In just 28 days, the oil had spread 4000 miles away from the location of the grounded tanker. The damage was extensive, with approximately 11 million gallons of crude oil leaked out of the tanker and into the sea. The result was a massive case of water pollution that was spreading too quickly to efficiently clean up (Wade, 1990, p.213).

To assume that the incident of the Exxon Valdez oil spill can be relegated to a "catastrophe" in the line of earthquakes and hurricanes is to obscure the reality of an oil spill. Though running aground can be considered an accident, the truth is that the Exxon Valdez tanker could have avoided the disaster in two ways. First, the company (Exxon) could have improved the design of the ship, i.e. two hulls or double bottom tankers (Hopkins, 1992, p.60). Though more expensive, the changes to the tanker's design could have sufficiently prevented the crude oil from leaking out. This additional expense could have saved both the company and the Alaska wilderness from degradation.

Second, the fact that the captain was, during the situation, unfit for manning the ship means that much of the incident can be attributed to his negligence. Certainly, no captain can be completely certain when navigating the treacherous sea. However, the issue with Exxon Valdez is that the captain was caught in a state of drunkenness and still allowed to man the tanker. Other crew members could have remedied the situation by refusing to allow the drunken captain to control the ship. To attribute the incident to an innocuous "accident", therefore, would be a gross understatement. It was more of human error than anything else, though one that is significantly criminal in nature. Perhaps the most apt description is negligence.

The Exxon Valdez oil spill is just one of the many oil spills that occur around the world. Other notable oil spills include the Guimaras oil spill in the Philippines and the Nagasaki Spirit oil spill in the Strait of Malacca. But how exactly does an oil spill impact the immediate area affected? The question is a rather difficult one, as each oil spill is different from another. The situation surrounding the disaster is significant in assessing the potential damage to be expected. The Exxon Valdez incident, for one, is significantly more extensive in its effects due to its size and the environmental factors surrounding the site of the spill.

One of the most significant effects of an oil spill on the environment is the destruction of sensitive habitats. In the Exxon Valdez incident, the oil spill spread throughout Prince William Sound and into the Gulf of Alaska in just five days. The swiftness of this spreading can be attributed to the environmental conditions of the spill. The incident occurred in "high latitude in a semi-enclosed body of water at the beginning of spring" (Skinner and Reilly, 1989, p.24). As such, the environmental situation conspired to increase the speed of the spread, hence the significant area covered by the spill in just a few days time.
The oil spill spreads through a number of ways. In the case of Prince William Sound, the behavior of the oil was extensively damaging for the surrounding area. Some of the crude oil became an emulsion covering the top layer of the sea in a thick, greasy mousse. Apart from this, some of the spilt oil either evaporated or dispersed further into the sea. Those that evaporated became either aerosol or spray-like, affecting the atmosphere. The dispersed oil went deeper into the water, causing some of the animals to ingest it. Moreover, the dispersion of the pollutant led to biodegradation among marine fauna (Skinner and Reilly, 1989, p.25).

It is highly unfortunate that the Exxon Valdez incident occurred in an area as significant as Prince William Sound. Though largely unknown to many, Prince William Sound was a unique ecological system. It is described as, "one of the largest tidal estuarine systems on the North American continent" (Skinner and Reilly, 1989, p.26). The area is highly sensitive and largely unexplored. Apart from being a natural attraction, Prince William Sound is home to a gamut of organisms and marine life. As such, the incident affected much of the ecosystem in the area. The oil spill and the subsequent clean-up both damaged much of the area's natural balance and led to the destruction of its fragile ecosystem.

This destruction can be seen in the effect of the oil spill on the birds and marine life that reside near or in Prince William Sound. First, the effect of the oil spill on the area's bird population was devastating. As mentioned earlier, an oil spill affects not only the water it pollutes; it also affects the surrounding atmosphere due to the evaporation of its noxious fumes into the air. Immediately after the Exxon Valdez tanker started leaking, an approximate 4,463 water birds died in the surrounding area. This number, however, does not represent the total fowl deaths in the area, as the long-term effect of the oil spill could lead to chick toxicity, embryonic poisoning and food loss (Skinner and Reilly, 1989, p.27).

Also vulnerable to oil spills are sea otters. Among marine mammals, sea otters are most affected by oil spills, mainly due to their dependence on fur for insulation. When an otter comes in contact with oil, it immediately dies of stress and hypothermia (Skinner and Reilly, 1989, p.27). Though the estimated death toll of otters is estimated at 479 currently, biologists believe that this may not be a full count as few otter bodies wash up to the shore. Apart from affecting marine creatures, however, it is also possible that the oil spill could lead to the poisoning of terrestrial animals. These animals, i.e. deer, bears etc., that often scavenge for food near the shore could inadvertently be poisoned as they feed on the carcass of oil spill victims (Skinner and Reilly, 1989, p.27).
The potential effect of the oil spill on marine life is even more long-term and difficult to fully gauge. "Long term effects to the area's rich biota may result from food chain and habitat disruption as well as from decreased survivability and reproductive capability of animals directly exposed to oil" (Skinner and Reilly, 1989, p.28). The effect is massive and long-term. Unlike the swift death meted on birds that come in contact with the aftermath of the oil spill, the marine life in the affected area may find itself suffering from the consequences of the incident years after it occurred. The disruption to the natural order and the sensitivity of marine life to pollution will be present in Prince William Sound for years to come.

But more than the effects of the oil spill on marine and terrestrial life, few realize that the effects of water pollution could go beyond the immediate coast. In fact, the aftermath of the oil spill could affect the health of the people living in the area surrounding the incident. One primary concern is food safety. Alaskans living near the incident of the oil spill in Prince William Sound were advised not to consume any of the dead animals that wash up on the shore as these are contaminated and could probably lead to poisoning when consumed. More importantly, the impact of crude oil on marine life has not been fully established yet, and it is possible for future organisms to retain the effects of the spill (Skinner and Reilly, 1989, p.32).

As discussed, the effects of the oil spill on the environment are largely long-term. Though immediate deaths may seem undesirable yet passing results in the aftermath of the oil spill, the truth is that the effects are not as immediate as they seem. The potential effect of the pollution on the surrounding marine and terrestrial life could remain hidden for years to come, and may resurface in the future. The disruption to the food chain affects not only the plant and animal life in the area of the oil spill - it will certainly affect the people living in the surrounding area as well. The impact on human, marine and terrestrial health is serious. These are some of the environmental effects of an oil spill.

What few people know - or realize - however, is that an oil spill also has economic effects. How exactly do the oil spill's effects on the environment produce economic consequences? The first and most significant economic consequence resulting from environmental degradation is the loss of environmental services stemming from the natural ecosystem (REECS, 2007, p.1). Mostly, these services go unnoticed because they are - more often than not - not directly traded as market commodities.

However, these services do affect the livelihood of the people in the surrounding area. Some services that can be considered victims of an oil spill are mangroves, coral reefs and estuaries. Note that these mentioned are common habitats for various forms of marine life. Though the problem of surfacing poisoned fish and other marine life can be resolved in a matter of months, the issue of rebuilding and nursing the habitats of these life forms can be challenging. Mangroves or coral reefs destroyed by the oil spill (and, quite possibly, the subsequent clean-up drive) are difficult to replace. As such, this greatly affects the livelihood of those who rely on the sea for food and a living.

An oil spill can also significantly affect income from tourism. Prior to the oil spill, Prince William Sound was not a particularly choice tourist destination. However, its pristine beauty has made it a natural stop for visitors to admire. Another oil spill victim, the island of Guimaras in the Philippines, suffered tourism losses of approximately 652.2 million in Philippine pesos or roughly 16 million US dollars (REECS, 2007, p.2). The effect of the oil spill on the tourism industry of both Prince William Sound and Guimaras is devastating. It goes without saying that a decline in the industry translates to less jobs and income opportunities for locals who rely on tourists and travelers for their livelihood.

Clean-up costs are another economic setback caused by an oil spill. Certainly, the company responsible for the leaking tanker must take charge of the clean-up costs in reducing the environmental effects of the oil spill. In the case of the Exxon Valdez oil spill, for example, the company immediately sent out a clean-up crew consisting of an initial 12, 500 employees (Wade, 1990, p.213). Exxon also had to spend for equipment, lodging, occupational health protection and supplies to support the crew working on the oil spill clean-up.

The total cost of Exxon's clean-up activities is sketchy at best. What is known, however, is the amount of compensation and liability that the company is required to pay. Exxon is liable for the first $14 million of the oil spill claims under government regulations (Skinner and Reilly, 1989, p.34). Although there is a Trans-Atlantic Pipe Fund that can help cover the expenses of cleaning up the oil spill, proven negligence on the part of Exxon will enable the TAP Fund to reimburse its expenses from Exxon. This means that even if there is a TAP Fund that provides monetary support for the clean-up, the company liable for the oil spill will still have to shoulder the expenses should it be proven that the incident was a result of negligence.

A more significant economic effect of an oil spill is its impact on government resources. There is a 311(k) Fund that "authorizes creation of a revolving fund to finance, among other things, the removal of oil and hazardous substances spilled from vessels" (Skinner and Reilly, 1989, p.34). Though Exxon has reimbursed part of the expenses taken from the 311(k) Fund, the considerable cost of clean-up might have left the fund without enough money to support damage assessment of the affected area. This means that the government would have to reallocate funds to the 311(k) in order to conduct damage assessment on natural resources. The economic toll of the oil spill affects not only the liable company, but also the government.

Many people seem to think that an oil spill is not quite as disastrous as a hurricane or an earthquake. In fact, since the death toll in an oil spill consists mostly of otters and reefs, few people see it as a serious "tragedy". However, this study showed that the effects of an oil spill may be more long-term than any other. The truth is that an oil spill does not only leave immediate effects that cause deaths among marine and terrestrial life in the affected region. It leaves a lasting mark that significantly damages the environment.

More importantly, the damage to environment is merely the tip of the iceberg. The economic repercussions of an oil spill are numerous and quite hefty. It is therefore important that more attention be given to the resolution of oil spill incidents. It is also imperative that steps to prevent future oil spills - either through improved training for the crew or strengthened tankers - be taken in order to ensure that the heavy toll it extracts from the environment and the economy will never again occur.

References:

Daley, Patrick and Dan O'Neill. "Sad is Too Mild a Word: Press Coverage of the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill." Journal of Communication 41.4 (1991): 42-57

Dow, Kristin. "The Extraordinary and the Everyday in Explanations of Vulnerability to an Oil Spill." TheGeographical Review 89.1 (1999): 74

Hamilton, V. Lee. "The Second Face of Evil: Wrongdoing In and By the Corporation." Personality and Social Psychology Review 3.3 (1999): 222-233

Hopkins, Thomas. "Oil Spill Reduction and Costs of Ship Design Regulation." Contemporary Policy Issues 10.3 (1992): 59-70

Lounsbury, Michael. "Silent Spill: The Organization of an Industrial Crisis." Administrative Science Quarterly 48.1 (2003): 137

Resources, Environment and Economic Center for Studies (REECS). "Preliminary Estimates of Economic and Ecosystem Losses from MV Solar I Oil Spill." Philippine Sustainable Development Network (2004). 2 April 2008, http://www.psdn.org.ph/reecs/mv1_solar_oilspill_summary.pdf

Skinner, Samuel and William Reilly. "The Exxon Valdez Oil Spill: A Report to the President." Alaska Regional Response Team, 1 April 2008, http://www.akrrt.org/Archives/Response_Reports/ExxonValdez_NRT_1989.pdf

Wade, Richard. "The Exxon Valdez Oil Spill: The Environmental Health Response to Man-Made Disasters." Journal of Environmental Health 52.4 (1990): 213

Viscusi, W. Kip. "Monetizing the Benefits of Risk and Environmental Regulation." Fordham Urban Law Journal 33.4 (2006): 1003