NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF

TECHNOLOGY KARNATAKA ,
SURATHKAL

SUBJECT : PROFESSIONAL ETHICS & HUMAN VALUES

TOPIC : THE EXXON OIL SPILL

GUIDED BY – DR. JAISHREE JAIKRISHNAN

NAME : SANKARSH . R
ROLL NO - 191034ME275
CLASS – S1
PROFESSIONAL ETHICS AND HUMAN
VALUES

Introduction to Human Values and Professional Ethics:

Character oriented education that instills basic values and ethnic
values in one’s psyche is called ‘Value Based Education’. The subject
that enables us to understand ‘what is valuable’ for human happiness
is called value education. Value education is important to help
everyone in improving the value system that he/she holds and puts it
to use.
Once, one has understood his/ her values in life he/she can examine
and control the various choices he/she makes in his/ her life. Value
education enables us to understand our needs and visualize our goals
correctly and also helps to remove our confusion and contradictions
and bring harmony at all levels. It also helps remove our confusions
and contradictions and enables us to rightly utilize technological
innovations. Values form the basis for all our thoughts, behaviors and
actions.

THE MAIN OBJECTIVES OF THIS COURSE ARE :-

 To give basic insights and inputs to the student to inculcate

Human values to grow as responsible human beings with a
proper personality.
 Professional Ethics instills the student to maintain ethical
conduct and discharge their professional duties.
Exxon Valdez oil spill
The Exxon Valdez oil spill occurred in Prince William Sound, Alaska,
March 24, 1989, when Exxon Valdez, an oil tanker owned by Exxon
Shipping Company, bound for Long Beach, California, struck Prince
William Sound's Bligh Reef, 1.5 mi (2.4 km) west of Tatitlek, Alaska, at
12:04 a.m. local time and spilled 10.8 million US gallons (260,000 bbl)
(or 37,000 metric tonnes) of crude oil over the next few days. It is
considered to be one of the worst human-caused environmental
disasters.] The Valdez spill is the second largest in US waters, after the
2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill, in terms of volume released. Prince
William Sound's remote location, accessible only by helicopter, plane, or
boat, made government and industry response efforts difficult and
severely taxed existing response plans. The region is
a habitat for salmon, sea otters, seals and seabirds. The oil, originally
extracted at the Prudhoe Bay Oil Field, eventually affected 1,300 miles
(2,100 km) of coastline, of which 200 miles (320 km) were heavily or
moderately oiled.

SPILL
The ship was carrying 53.1 million US gallons (1,260,000 bbl;
201,000 m3) of oil, of which about 10.8 million US gallons (260,000 bbl;
41,000 m3) were spilled into the Prince William Sound

Multiple factors have been identified as contributing to the incident:

 Exxon Shipping Company failed to supervise the master and provide

a rested and sufficient crew for Exxon Valdez. The NTSB found this
was widespread throughout the industry, prompting a safety
recommendation to Exxon and to the industry.
 The third mate failed to properly maneuver the vessel, possibly due to
fatigue or excessive workload.[13]
 Exxon Shipping Company failed to properly maintain
the Raytheon Collision Avoidance System (RAYCAS) radar, which, if
functional, would have indicated to the third mate an impending
 collision with the Bligh Reef by detecting the "radar reflector", placed
on the next rock inland from Bligh Reef for the purpose of keeping
ships on course. This cause was brought forward by Greg Palast and
is not present in the official accident report.
Captain Joseph Hazelwood, who was widely reported to have been
drinking heavily that night, was not at the controls when the ship struck
the reef. Exxon blamed Captain Hazelwood for the grounding of the
tanker, but Hazelwood accused the corporation of making him
a scapegoat. As the senior officer in command of the ship, he was
accused of being intoxicated and thereby contributing to the disaster, but
he was cleared of this charge at his 1990 trial after witnesses testified
that he was sober around the time of the accident. In light of the other
findings, investigative reporter Greg Palast stated in 2008, "Forget the
drunken skipper fable. At the helm, the third mate may never have
collided with Bligh Reef had he looked at his RAYCAS radar. But the
radar was not turned on. In fact, the tanker's radar was left broken and
disabled for more than a year before the disaster, and Exxon
management knew it. It was just too expensive to fix and operate."
Other factors, according to an MIT course entitled "Software System
Safety" by Professor Nancy G. Leveson, included:

1. Ships were not informed that the previous practice of the Coast
Guard tracking ships out to Bligh Reef had ceased.
2. The oil industry promised, but never installed, state-of-the-art
iceberg monitoring equipment.
3. Exxon Valdez was sailing outside the normal sea lane to avoid
small icebergs thought to be in the area.
4. The 1989 tanker crew was half the size of the 1977 crew, worked
12- to 14-hour shifts, plus overtime. The crew was rushing to leave
Valdez with a load of oil.
5. Coast Guard vessel inspections in Valdez were not performed, and
the number of staff was reduced.
6. Lack of available equipment and personnel hampered the spill
cleanup.
This disaster resulted in International Maritime Organization introducing
comprehensive marine pollution prevention rules (MARPOL) through
various conventions. The rules were ratified by member countries and,
under International Ship Management rules, the ships are being
operated with a common objective of "safer ships and cleaner oceans".
In 2009, Exxon Valdez Captain Joseph Hazelwood offered a "heartfelt
apology" to the people of Alaska, suggesting he had been wrongly
blamed for the disaster: "The true story is out there for anybody who
wants to look at the facts, but that's not the sexy story and that's not the
easy story," he said. Hazelwood said he felt Alaskans always gave him a
fair shake

CLEAN UP AND ENVIRONMENTAL

IMPACTS
Chemical dispersant, a surfactant and solvent mixture, was applied to
the slick by a private company on March 24 with a helicopter. But the
helicopter missed the target area. Scientific data on its toxicity were
either thin or incomplete. In addition, public acceptance of a new,
widespread chemical treatment was lacking. Landowners, fishing
groups, and conservation organizations questioned the use of chemicals
on hundreds of miles of shoreline when other alternatives may have
been available.
According to a report by David Kirby for TakePart, the main component
of the Corexit formulation used during cleanup, 2-butoxyethanol, was
identified as "one of the agents that caused liver, kidney, lung, nervous
system, and blood disorders among cleanup crews in Alaska following
the 1989 Exxon Valdez spill.
Mechanical cleanup was started shortly afterwards using booms and
skimmers, but the skimmers were not readily available during the first 24
hours following the spill, and thick oil and kelp tended to clog the
equipment. Despite civilian insistence for a complete clean, only 10% of
total oil was actually completely cleaned. Exxon was widely criticized for
its slow response to cleaning up the disaster and John Devens, the
mayor of Valdez, has said his community felt betrayed by Exxon's
inadequate response to the crisis. More than 11,000 Alaska residents,
along with some Exxon employees, worked throughout the region to try
to restore the environment.
Because Prince William Sound contained many rocky coves where the
oil collected, the decision was made to displace it with high-pressure hot
water. However, this also displaced and destroyed the microbial
populations on the shoreline; many of these organisms (e.g. plankton)
are the basis of the coastal marine food chain, and others (e.g. certain
bacteria and fungi) are capable of facilitating the biodegradation of oil. At
the time, both scientific advice and public pressure was to clean
everything, but since then, a much greater understanding of natural and
facilitated remediation processes has developed, due somewhat in part
to the opportunity presented for study by the Exxon Valdez spill. Despite
the extensive cleanup attempts, less than ten percent of the oil was
recovered.
Both the long-term and short-term effects of the oil spill have been
studied. Immediate effects included the deaths of 100,000 to as many as
250,000 seabirds, at least 2,800 sea otters, approximately 12 river
otters, 300 harbor seals, 247 bald eagles, and 22 orcas, and an
unknown number of salmon and herring.
Although the volume of oil has declined considerably with oil remaining
only about 0.14–0.28% of the original spilled volume, studies suggest
the area of oiled beach has changed little since 1992. A study by the
National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA in Juneau, determined that by
2001 approximately 90 tonnes of oil remained on beaches in Prince
William Sound in the sandy soil of the contaminated shoreline, with
annualized loss rates declining from 68% per year prior to 1992, to 4%
per year after 2001.

The remaining oil lasting far longer than anticipated has resulted in more
long-term losses of species than had been expected. Laboratory
experiments found that at levels as low as one part per billion, polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons are toxic for salmon and herring eggs. Species
as diverse as sea otters, harlequin ducks and orcas suffered immediate
and long-term losses. Oiled mussel beds and other tidal shoreline
habitats may take up to 30 years to recover.
ExxonMobil denied concerns over remaining oil, stating that they
anticipated the remaining fraction would not cause long-term ecological
impacts. According to the conclusions of ExxonMobil's study: "We've
done 350 peer-reviewed studies of Prince William Sound, and those
studies conclude that Prince William Sound has recovered, it's healthy
and it's thriving."
On March 24, 2014, the twenty-fifth anniversary of the spill, NOAA
scientists reported that some species seem to have recovered, with the
sea otter the latest creature to return to pre-spill numbers. Scientists who
have monitored the spill area for the last 25 years report that concern
remains for one of two pods of local orca whales, with fears that one pod
may eventually die out. Federal scientists estimate that between 16,000
and 21,000 US gallons (61 to 79 m3) of oil remains on beaches in Prince
William Sound and up to 450 miles (725 km) away. Some of the oil does
not appear to have biodegraded at all. A USGS scientist who analyses
the remaining oil along the coastline states that it remains among rocks
and between tide marks. "The oil mixes with seawater and forms an
emulsion...Left out, the surface crusts over but the inside still has the
consistency of mayonnaise – or mousse." Alaska state senator Berta
Gardner is urging Alaskan politicians to demand that the US government
force ExxonMobil to pay the final $92 million (£57 million) still owed from
the court settlement. The major part of the money would be spent to
finish cleaning up oiled beaches and attempting to restore the crippled
herring population

ECONOMIC AND PERSONAL IMPACTS

According to several studies funded by the state of Alaska, the spill had
both short-term and long-term economic effects. These included the loss
of recreational sports, fisheries, reduced tourism, and an estimate of
what economists call "existence value", which is the value to the public
of a pristine Prince William Sound.
The economy of the city of Cordova, Alaska was adversely affected after
the spill damaged stocks of salmon and herring in the area. The village
of Chenega was transformed into an emergency base and media
outlet.The local villagers had to cope with a tripling of their population
from 80 to 250. When asked how they felt about the situation, a village
councillor noted that they were too shocked and busy to be depressed;
others emphasized the human costs of leaving children unattended
while their parents worked to clean up. Many Native Americans were
worried that too much time was spent on the fishery and not enough on
the land that supports subsidence hunting.
In 2010, a CNN report alleged that many oil spill cleanup workers
involved in the Exxon Valdez response had subsequently become sick.
Anchorage lawyer Dennis Mestas found that this was true of 6,722 of
11,000 worker files he was able to inspect. Access to the records was
controlled by Exxon. Exxon responded in a statement to CNN:
After 20 years, there is no evidence suggesting that either cleanup
workers or the residents of the communities affected by the Valdez spill
have had any adverse health effects as a result of the spill or its
cleanup.
POLITICAL CONSEQUENCES AND
REFORMS
The Oil Spill Recovery Institute was formed after United States
Congress approved it to seek a solution. Collaborating
with InnoCentive they found a partial solution for the flow of oil.
Coast Guard report
A report by the US National Response Team summarized the event and
made a number of recommendations, such as changes to the work
patterns of Exxon crew in order to address the causes of the accident.

Oil Pollution Act of 1990

In response to the spill, the United States Congress passed the Oil
Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA). The legislation included a clause that
prohibits any vessel that, after March 22, 1989, has caused an oil spill of
more than 1 million US gallons (3,800 m3) in any marine area, from
operating in Prince William Sound.
In April 1998, the company argued in a legal action against the Federal
government that the ship should be allowed back into Alaskan waters.
Exxon claimed OPA was effectively a bill of attainder, a regulation that
was unfairly directed at Exxon alone. In 2002, the 9th Circuit Court of
Appeals ruled against Exxon. As of 2002, OPA had prevented 18 ships
from entering Prince William Sound.
OPA also set a schedule for the gradual phase in of a double
hull design, providing an additional layer between the oil tanks and the
ocean. While a double hull would likely not have prevented
the Valdez disaster, a Coast Guard study estimated that it would have
cut the amount of oil spilled by 60 percent.
The Exxon Valdez supertanker was towed to San Diego, arriving on July
10. Repairs began on July 30. Approximately 1,600 short tons (1,500 t)
of steel were removed and replaced. In June 1990 the tanker,
renamed Exxon Mediterranean, left harbor after $30 million of
repairs.[54] In 1993, owned by SeaRiver Maritime, it was named S/R
Mediterranean, then in 2005 Mediterranean. In 2008 the vessel was
acquired by a Hong Kong company that operated it as Dong Fang
Ocean, then in 2011 renamed it Oriental Nicety. In August 2012, it was
beached at Alang, India, and dismantled.
 Alaska regulations
In the aftermath of the spill, Alaska governor Steve Cowper issued an
executive order requiring two tugboats to escort every loaded tanker
from Valdez out through Prince William Sound to Hinchinbrook
Entrance. As the plan evolved in the 1990s, one of the two routine
tugboats was replaced with a 210-foot (64 m) Escort Response Vehicle
(ERV). Tankers at Valdez are no longer single-hulled. Congress enacted
legislation requiring all tankers to be double-hulled as of 2015.

CHANGES EXXON MOBIL HAS MADE TO PREVENT

ANOTHER ACCIDENT LIKE VALDEZ

In the aftermath of the Exxon Valdez accident, ExxonMobil redoubled its

long-time commitment to safeguard the environment, employees and
operating communities worldwide. Among the measures taken to
improve oil-spill prevention:

 All vessels in ExxonMobil services are fully double-hull construction,

mitigating the effects of nearly all low energy incidents
 All vessels in their service have to first undergo a thorough and rigorous
vetting process, using industry-leading quality assessment techniques
 They require industry best-practice application of vessel-management
techniques, such as bridge team resource management

In the event a spill occurs, they also have improved our response
capability. For example:

 ExxonMobil is a founding member of every major oil spill-response

organization worldwide
 There are over 1,000 ExxonMobil employees involved in oil spill
response teams worldwide
 They hold frequent, extensive oil spill drills and hands-on-training at
various ExxonMobil locations around the world and
 They have developed and applied new spill-detecting technology
GALLERY