Exxon Valdez oil spill ruling overturned

[Federal Farmer]

No, I am holding him responsible for the actions of Exxon, the corporate entity that he was in charge of, as well as his personal behavior, comments and commitments.

Did they, or did they not immediately mount the most expensive, and extensive clean up operation in history to that date? Yes they did, so again, your objections come down to personalities.

Yeah thats a good argument
Two very different things entirely. You and I both know that.

Not at all. Both New Orleans and Alaska benefited from large scale operations, the hazards of both which were readily known to all of their citizens, yet both cry foul when something went wrong, and expect someone else to pay for the mess and steadfastly refuse to accept any of their own culpability!

Firstly, the tone of most of this statement is unnecessary. I am not going to go down the road of you twisting my comments into quasi personal attacks at myself, an entire poppulation of a state. It is unbecoming, and shows an inability to have a serious discussion. Bring these types of posts elsewhere.
I am not interested. But to address the one thing worthy of mentioning is that Exxon's relationship with the State of Alaska. There is no doubt it has been mutually beneficial. The state bent over backwards to accomodate oil development, and the other two major producers here, BP and Conoco Phillips have been very good stewards of the resource and excellent corporate citizens overall.

Sir, I don't have to twist anything. The State of Alaska begged the oil companies to come up there because they knew what it would do for their economy, and the only "bending over backwards" that was done, was to do everything they could to entice the oil companies to come up there so that Alaska could finally come from being a backward hick State, and drug into the 20th century. The fact of the matter is that since 1977 when the pipeline was completed, until the Valdez incident in 1989, Alaska profited by over $28 Billion dollars, from the oil industry ALONE (figures from your own States OMB), and in the 22 years since the incident has continued to profit from the oil industry at a highly accelerated rate. Exxon has already spent well over $2.2 Bn in the clean up effort over the 3 following years until your own States government and the US Coast Guard, not Exxon, declared the clean up completed. How much did the State of Alaska contribute financially to the clean up effort? "OH, but that's what Exxon had insurance for, and it's Exxons responsibility". So Alaska gets to profit, but has no responsibility? You dance with the Devil, you're GOING to get burned.

You sit there and say that BP and Conoco have been "good stewards, blah, blah, blah", but I'll bet your tune will change if they ever suffer an incident, and you'll be trying to crucify them as well.

Well, you might want to read up on it.
http://www.adn.com/evos/stories/EV53.html

Thank you for the link.

Hmmm, BAC of .061 a full 10 hours after he was done drinking? He was aquitted of DUI in Alaska. The USCG found him to drunk to be in command of the vessel and suspended his license for 9months.

I fear your "facts" are misleading. His samples for BAC testing were not taken within the prescribed time frame as established by Alaska law, and they were grossly mishandled and the .061 BAC was enhanced as a result through fermentation. He was never convicted on ANY felony charge, and only a misdemeanor charge of negligent discharge of oil.

This is the sort of comments that I address in my earlier statements. It is totally incorrect, and nothing but baiting and I will not tolerate this. If that is your sentiments, then do us all a favor up here and never return.

There's nothing "baiting" about it. The vast majority of the citizens I have encountered on the occasions I have been there WERE alcoholics, and shared your belief that "you can't drink all day if you don't start in the morning". As for returning, I will visit my family members any time I choose to do so.

What you are failing to miss entirely, the reason Hazelwood is culpable is because he is the captain of that vessel, and responsible for the operations of it, in its entirety. The guy at the helm at the time is also an idiot. No question. He ran a 900something foot tanker into a clearly marker navigation hazard on his chart.

I haven't missed anything, as I clearly stated that Hazlewood should have remained at the helm, and that the helmsman failed to obey his orders to return to the shipping lane. The Master of a vessel is ultimately responsible for everything that happens on or to his vessel, this has been Maritime Law since the 17th century, and nobody is disputing it, I merely pointed out a salient mitigating fact, but I did not in any way attempt to alleviate Hazlewood of his responsibility.

No, ultimately it is about the courts ruling. They took quite a hard line approach in favor of vessel owners and operators. I think it is generally quite short sighted and out of date with modern times.
Also, my own judge? Why do I even bother?

No, they took a hard line approach in support of the LETTER OF THE LAW. And yes, if you are an Alaskan, he is/was YOUR Judge as the case was heard in an Alaska Court, in front of an Alaskan Judge, and an Alaskan Jury, all of whom, in their blood lust, neglected to abide by the letter of the law, and it was THEIR actions that led to almost 20 years of appeals.

If you find the law to be "short sighted and out of date with modern times" then I suggest that you follow the letter of the law concerning such matters and CHANGE IT! This is the same issue that plagues our country today, people in our governments and our courts routinely ignore the law of the land by subverting it rather than using the mechanisms that are already in place to change them. You can't simply ignore a law you don't like, but you can use the other laws to change the bad ones.

Here is the main causes as found by the NTSB.
(1) The third mate failed to properly maneuver the vessel, possibly due to fatigue and excessive workload;
We have been over this. The man at the helm, third mate Cousins was obviously an idiot and should never have been left alone on the bridge. He probably shouldnt have been left alone in a skiff.

The "idiot" was properly licensed by the USCG as a helmsman.

(2) the master failed to provide a proper navigation watch, possibly due to impairment from alcohol;
We have been over this.

Probably? Never conclusively proven as Alaska LEO's failed to take a sample in time, and the sample that was eventually taken was mishandled. In America we don't convict people for "probably".

(3) Exxon Shipping Company failed to supervise the master and provide a rested and sufficient crew for the Exxon Valdez;
There has long been speculation that Cousins was also under the influence of something himself at the time. Of course nothing proven, but Hazelwood and the crew were not entirely forth coming right away about what exactly went down, and had quite a bit of time alone to corraborate any story necessary.

Again, "speculation" is not EVIDENCE. As for Exxon providing a rested and sufficient crew, I cannot, and will not, attempt to dispute that.

(4) the U.S. Coast Guard failed to provide an effective vessel traffic system;
Again, a clearly charted hazard and was clearly marked on the ships chart. What they now have in place is a lighted bouy marker.

(5) effective pilot and escort services were lacking.
They now require pilot and escort until the vessels have cleared Hitchinbrook Island are more or less in the Gulf of Alaska. Whereas before they only needed to be on board while transiting the Valdez Narrows.

What they have now are lighted buoy markers that every other port has had for as long as I can remember! Even my home town, a port city on the Gulf of Mexico, has had lighted buoys all along the shipping lanes and on ALL hazards to shipping since the 60's. Why were those lighted buoy markers not present in Prince William Sound BEFORE the incident? They also now have 2 vessels to escort all tankers out of the Sound, which they did not have prior to the incident. Why were there no escorts at that time, considering their departure and passage through a known hazardous area during hours of darkness?

Oh so again its the USCGs fault?

In part, as your own evidence shows, otherwise why were all the changes made? Thank you for substantiating my point for me.

PWS is generally ice free, except for calving glaciers which is where you get the ice bergs from. They were well outside of where they were intended to be. One can make all the traffic rules they want, it doesnt prevent someone breaking them though.

The icebergs were well outside where they were intended to be? Where were they supposed to be, in March, in Alaska? Of course there would never be any icebergs calving off of the Harvard, Columbia, Chenega, Shoup, Meares or Yale Glaciers into the sound, and especially nowhere near the shipping lane! We should immediately fine that State of Alaska for not maintaining proper control of IT'S icebergs, and for negligently allowing them into the navigable waterways thereby leading the the Exxon Valdez disaster.

The Valdez left the shipping lanes, in accordance with PRESCRIBED USCG RULES, to avoid the icebergs. If the Valdez had navigated illegally, then Hazlewood would have been charged accordingly, yet no such charges were filed.

 

[Bunz]

Did they, or did they not immediately mount the most expensive, and extensive clean up operation in history to that date? Yes they did, so again, your objections come down to personalities.

Exxon paid for the cleanup, whilst it was the USCG that was the lead agency in charge. I am talking about the policies in place that Lee Raymond oversaw. So lets go over them again. Allowing a known and troubled alcoholic continue in the capacity of being a master of a ship despite, having 3 drunken driving convictions in less than 5 years. He did not even have a frackin drivers license at the time.
Then there was the 4 hour bottle to throttle policy.
Then there was his personal behavior in regards to dealing with individual Alaskans as a whole. My objections, and that shared by probably hundreds of thousands of Alaskans deal with that. What, do you expect us to cozy up and say bygones are bygones?

Not at all. Both New Orleans and Alaska benefited from large scale operations, the hazards of both which were readily known to all of their citizens, yet both cry foul when something went wrong, and expect someone else to pay for the mess and steadfastly refuse to accept any of their own culpability!

Wait a minute here. NOLA and Alaska are two very different things. I am not going to condone or support any of the behaviors of some people in NOLA. But the differences are notable. NOLA was wiped out by a natural disaster.
PWS was sadly effected by a drunken skipper and an idiotic helmsman who was either under the influence himself, or asleep at the time. Totally preventable. Human negligence versus a massive hurricane are two very different things.

Sir, I don't have to twist anything. The State of Alaska begged the oil companies to come up there because they knew what it would do for their economy, and the only "bending over backwards" that was done, was to do everything they could to entice the oil companies to come up there so that Alaska could finally come from being a backward hick State, and drug into the 20th century. The fact of the matter is that since 1977 when the pipeline was completed, until the Valdez incident in 1989, Alaska profited by over $28 Billion dollars, from the oil industry ALONE (figures from your own States OMB), and in the 22 years since the incident has continued to profit from the oil industry at a highly accelerated rate. Exxon has already spent well over $2.2 Bn in the clean up effort over the 3 following years until your own States government and the US Coast Guard, not Exxon, declared the clean up completed. How much did the State of Alaska contribute financially to the clean up effort? "OH, but that's what Exxon had insurance for, and it's Exxons responsibility". So Alaska gets to profit, but has no responsibility? You dance with the Devil, you're GOING to get burned.

I said in my earlier post that the relationship between Alaska and Oil Companies have been mutually beneficial. There is no question in this. Ultimately though, the oil belongs to Alaskans, the Constitution was designed that way.
Where one draws the line though is an ecological disaster caused by a company. Either way, Exxon is going to get squeezed out of Alaska, the process as already started, by moving to revoke the Pt. Thompson leases. Plus Exxon doesnt have a hand in the new gasline that will be coming on line in a decade or so. There is another trillion bucks up there that Exxon is gonna lose out on most likely.

You sit there and say that BP and Conoco have been "good stewards, blah, blah, blah", but I'll bet your tune will change if they ever suffer an incident, and you'll be trying to crucify them as well.

Both companies have had thier incidents. BP was the company that was responsible for a 200,000 gallon leak on the north slope that caused the entire pipeline to be shut down for nearly a week back in 2006. But BP is a major employer of Alaskans, they have a major headquarters here, same as Conoco, both do tons of charitable work and have looked to expand thier operations in Alaska, as is Shell. Exxon on the other hand hires a minimum of Alaskans, has avoided investment and been generally a stick in the eye of Alaska. Personally Id rather they take thier money and go somewhere else.

your "facts" are misleading. His samples for BAC testing were not taken within the prescribed time frame as established by Alaska law, and they were grossly mishandled and the .061 BAC was enhanced as a result through fermentation. He was never convicted on ANY felony charge, and only a misdemeanor charge of negligent discharge of oil.

I never said anything about felony conviction. I am fully aware of the issues involved with his DUI aquittal and ultimatly under the law it was the right thing to do. By his own admission though he said he had 2-3 vodkas. Between 430-630pm that same day. The vessel left Valdez at 930. The grounding happened just after midnight. LEOs couldnt administer the test before then. His own crew testified that he was flippin drunk all day before he left. He got off on a technicality.

There's nothing "baiting" about it. The vast majority of the citizens I have encountered on the occasions I have been there WERE alcoholics, and shared your belief that "you can't drink all day if you don't start in the morning". As for returning, I will visit my family members any time I choose to do so.

Where in Alaska have you been? If you are going to group together hundreds of thousands of people and then claim the vast majority of them are anything, you better be able to back it up, or shut it up. Because your claims are simply bogus. What my signature is has nothing to do with being Alaskan, and any inferrence to alcohol in it, is yours alone. No mention at all of alcohol there. So, where were you and when?

I haven't missed anything, as I clearly stated that Hazlewood should have remained at the helm, and that the helmsman failed to obey his orders to return to the shipping lane. The Master of a vessel is ultimately responsible for everything that happens on or to his vessel, this has been Maritime Law since the 17th century, and nobody is disputing it, I merely pointed out a salient mitigating fact, but I did not in any way attempt to alleviate Hazlewood of his responsibility.

Another something we can agree on.

No, they took a hard line approach in support of the LETTER OF THE LAW. And yes, if you are an Alaskan, he is/was YOUR Judge as the case was heard in an Alaska Court, in front of an Alaskan Judge, and an Alaskan Jury, all of whom, in their blood lust, neglected to abide by the letter of the law, and it was THEIR actions that led to almost 20 years of appeals.

My point is that clearly, the law in question is outdated, and very short sighted. Upholding the letter of the law, doesnt make the law a good law.
Mark my words, there will come a time, when something worse than EV happens in America. And it will come with a large loss of life. It will be tragic and I hope it doesnt happen here. But to suggest the punitive damages should not be a penny more than other damages is really short sighted. It leaves a real big incentive for this to happen again. The idea was the send a message to ship owners to ensure this does not happen again. That is what punitive damages are about. 5 billion would not have bankrupted the company by any means. It would have hurt though(which is the point).
In the meantime, Exxon surely knows that they can get away with just about anything and thier financial obligation will be another business expense.

If you find the law to be "short sighted and out of date with modern times" then I suggest that you follow the letter of the law concerning such matters and CHANGE IT! This is the same issue that plagues our country today, people in our governments and our courts routinely ignore the law of the land by subverting it rather than using the mechanisms that are already in place to change them. You can't simply ignore a law you don't like, but you can use the other laws to change the bad ones.

Dont worry, the laws are changing. State law has already been revamped before this, but of course federal law trumps it. I think considering the reaction from lawmakers in both houses and parties, that this will also see change.

 

[Bunz]

Part 2

The "idiot" was properly licensed by the USCG as a helmsman.

Having a license and being an idiot are not mutually exclusive.

Probably? Never conclusively proven as Alaska LEO's failed to take a sample in time, and the sample that was eventually taken was mishandled. In America we don't convict people for "probably".

Which is why he wasnt convicted. LEO didnt have the opportunity to take that sample in time.

What they have now are lighted buoy markers that every other port has had for as long as I can remember! Even my home town, a port city on the Gulf of Mexico, has had lighted buoys all along the shipping lanes and on ALL hazards to shipping since the 60's. Why were those lighted buoy markers not present in Prince William Sound BEFORE the incident? They also now have 2 ve
ssels to escort all tankers out of the Sound, which they did not have prior to the incident. Why were there no escorts at that time, considering their departure and passage through a known hazardous area during hours of darkness?

PWS and the Gulf of Mexico are two very different things.
Before this happened, it was generally assumed that this was unthinkable. Bligh Reef is deep enough where it is only a hazard only to the largest ships. It was far enough outside of the shipping lanes that it was not though to be struck by them. Only a drunk, idiot, and someone asleep would hit it. So now, they have to idiot proof it. I am not at all convinced a lighted bouy in place then would have prevented this from happening. A sleeping man wouldnt have seen it. Youd have to ask the Federal Government why they were in place as they are responsible for such fixtures and policies. Not the state.

Also, there were pilot and escort services. At the time, it was generally accepted that it was only needed in navigating through the Valdez narrows. But there was a pilot on board for those purposes prior to this. Under the conditions that night, a sober and awake high school student with a basic working knowledge of how to steer a vessel and read a chart could have made thier way out of the sound safely.

In part, as your own evidence shows, otherwise why were all the changes made? Thank you for substantiating my point for me.

The changes were made just as most other changes in government result. As a response to something that happened that shouldnt have. Why were 19 people allowed on airplanes with boxcutters on 9-11, and people cant have a pair of scissors now.

The icebergs were well outside where they were intended to be? Where were they supposed to be, in March, in Alaska? Of course there would never be any icebergs calving off of the Harvard, Columbia, Chenega, Shoup, Meares or Yale Glaciers into the sound, and especially nowhere near the shipping lane! We should immediately fine that State of Alaska for not maintaining proper control of IT'S icebergs, and for negligently allowing them into the navigable waterways thereby leading the the Exxon Valdez disaster.

When you bring in that garbage about fines to the state, it makes your argument look bad. Id avoid such absurdity in the future. As for the ice, I wasnt there that night, I dont know how bad it was. But I do know that glaciers calf much less in winter. Youll notice in the pictures of the vessel in the aftermath and there isnt an ice cube in sight. The ice in shipping lanes concern raise from the Columbia and Shoup glaciers. Harvard and the rest of the ivy league glaciers are well west.

The Valdez left the shipping lanes, in accordance with PRESCRIBED USCG RULES, to avoid the icebergs. If the Valdez had navigated illegally, then Hazlewood would have been charged accordingly, yet no such charges were filed.

I dont care if charges were filled or not. Bligh Reef is not in the shipping lanes, and again, only an incompetant idiot would operate that type of vessel in those waters. If they wouldnt have hit bligh reef, they would have likely run aground elsewhere.

 

[Bunz]

Hi Scot,
Ill do my best to reply to your post and maybe throw some insight into things a bit where I can.

well.....oil tends to get transported round the world in tankers and since many of the new fields being developed or under consideration (certainly now the price of oil makes them economically viable) tend to be offshore I just though they may use oil tankers to bring the oil to refineries?

Most of the offshore rigs use an underwater pipeline to get the resource to shore rather than oil tankers. The nature of how the docking takes place, and the potential volume of oil along with a potentially dangerous situation of bringing a ship that close to an oil rig.

I suppose Exxon Valdez in a perverse sort of way was needed. Prior to the Bligh Reef spill crisis management and pollution response was ad-hoc and amature at best and coastgurd traffic management and pilotage was poor. The world learned a lesson that quick and effective spill response was needed and in most places well equipped and trained teams now exist.

I have heard this argument before and I can understand some of the logic behind it. Often times it takes tragedy to prevent further or future tragedy.
I will admit again, this is an emotional and personal issue for me. I fished and hunted as a kid in PWS and on Montague Island before this happened and saw it for what it should be, among the most beautiful places on Earth and at one time, among the most abundant marine ecosystems in the world. I also was flying to Seattle about 2 weeks afterwards and flying over from 25,000 feet, was shocked at the amount of oil to be seen from there. I had several family members involved in the cleanup and have heard the first person accounts of the futility of the efforts.
Now I have been back several times in the last 10 years. I generally have stayed to the south and west of the sound. But when I originally bought my boat from a Cordova fisherman in 2002(who was a former herring fisher who was ruined financially by the spill) and needed to transit the vessel to Seward to be loaded on a barge for shipping to Bristol Bay, myself, my parents, and a deck hand went to the comfort cove area where 2 uncles worked on the cleanup to see for ourselves, and sure enough, just below the surface on miles of beach. Still sat crude oil. The marine life still has not recovered in the north eastern portion. Especially the marine mammals.

So, I guess though, that is hard lessons were learned and another accident like this doesnt happen, then some good has come from the spill. At this point, other than that, when weighing all considerable impacts from the spill, beyond the ecological, the spill did create some wealth from cleanup efforts for a small amount of people. We call them "spillionaires" For the far majority, it has been nothing but economic ruin, subsistence strain, and emotional hardships.

 

[Federal Farmer]

To save space, I'm merely going to include my responses.

No, I don't expect you to "cozy up", but even discussing taking violent actions against him is both immature and foolish.


Exactly, YOUR oil, YOU deal with it, and quit trying to blame everyone else.

Great, which means that they won't be pumping any money into the economy up there any longer. I'm sure that they're saying "good riddance".

The USCG has all of the equipment necessary to perform a DUI test, and they were on scene in plenty of time. Also, the Valdez was under command of the Harbor Pilot until 23:30 hours, which means that Capt. Hazlewood WAS outside the 4 hour window before he was at "the throttle".

I have family in Nome, whom I visit every 5 years or so. I also have a cousin in Anchorage, who retired up there after his last assignment at Shemya AFB, and that's not counting the times I was up there for Arctic training, and TDY's while in the service.

As for your lame attempt at equivocations, the implication in your sig line is clear, and your effort to deny any such connection is in itself indicative of extreme alcoholism. Now, it would appear that it is YOU who needs to "shut up".

Your point was clear, and it is in violation of the law. How would you like it if you were arrested for say, jaywalking, but they wanted to "send a message" and sentenced you to 2 years in prison? Would you be so cavalier about the law then? 2 years in prison wouldn't kill you, but it surely would send a message.

As for the laws being changed, GREAT! But as I said, just because you don't like a law, doesn't give you any permission to ignore or disobey it.

Part 2

You're obviously not aware of the many hazards near the shipping lanes in the Gulf. As for there not being a lighted buoy there, such a buoy was MANDATED by Title 33 USC, as a direct result of the Olympia collision with the same reef in 1910, and contrary to your assertion, Bligh Reef is less than a mile outside the shipping lane, so obviously hitting it after leaving the shipping lane to avoid icebergs was not only a possibility, it was a PROBABILITY, as the Olympia proved almost 80 years before! I notice that like the citizens of New Orleans, you're falling back on the "it's the Federal Governments fault". Is it your contention that the State of Alaska bears no responsibility for ensuring that the hazards in IT'S waters are clearly marked?

I see you've also reverted to forwarding totally unfounded accusations again. There is no evidence that anyone was asleep at the helm, so you can stow that right now.

When you bring in that garbage about fines to the state, it makes your argument look bad. Id avoid such absurdity in the future.

You've made nothing BUT bad arguments since the very beginning, I simply used it to illustrate exactly how absurd your arguments have been.

As for the ice, I wasnt there that night, I dont know how bad it was. But I do know that glaciers calf much less in winter. Youll notice in the pictures of the vessel in the aftermath and there isnt an ice cube in sight. The ice in shipping lanes concern raise from the Columbia and Shoup glaciers. Harvard and the rest of the ivy league glaciers are well west.

Then exactly what ice did they leave the shipping lanes to avoid? You're really stretching here.

 

[Bunz]

This certainly is turning interesting.

No, I don't expect you to "cozy up", but even discussing taking violent actions against him is both immature and foolish.

I would never do anything myself or encourage anyone else to do so. Let me make that clear to up any confusion, in case it appeared that way. I am merely saying that he certainly would be jeered, and it would not surprise me in the slightest if an individual did something to him. Hazelwood was originally supposed to be picking up litter for his 1,000 hours of community service. They moved him to working in the local soup kitchen due to concerns for his safety.

Exactly, YOUR oil, YOU deal with it, and quit trying to blame everyone else.

Its Alaska's oil until it is pumped out of the ground. Certainly you are not calling on any government to absorb the costs of the cleanup, are you?

Great, which means that they won't be pumping any money into the economy up there any longer. I'm sure that they're saying "good riddance".

Plenty of other companies who want that gas. Sounds like Chevron has already expressed interest in the Pt. Thompson leases that Exxon faces to lose. Shell certainly would bid as well. Let them go, that would make tens of thousands of Alaskans overjoyed.

The USCG has all of the equipment necessary to perform a DUI test, and they were on scene in plenty of time. Also, the Valdez was under command of the Harbor Pilot until 23:30 hours, which means that Capt. Hazlewood WAS outside the 4 hour window before he was at "the throttle".

Throttle is not a literal term of course. He was drunk while in command of his ship. He needed to be not drinking 4 hours minimum to departure. The Coast Guard were not the first agency to be on the scene in physical contact with the crew. It was the State Troopers.

You're obviously not aware of the many hazards near the shipping lanes in the Gulf. As for there not being a lighted buoy there, such a buoy was MANDATED by Title 33 USC, as a direct result of the Olympia collision with the same reef in 1910, and contrary to your assertion, Bligh Reef is less than a mile outside the shipping lane, so obviously hitting it after leaving the shipping lane to avoid icebergs was not only a possibility, it was a PROBABILITY, as the Olympia proved almost 80 years before! I notice that like the citizens of New Orleans, you're falling back on the "it's the Federal Governments fault". Is it your contention that the State of Alaska bears no responsibility for ensuring that the hazards in IT'S waters are clearly marked?

Sigh.
I lay blame for a systemic failure ultimately. The far far majority of it, lays at the hands of Joe Hazelwood. I have said before I am not convinced that a lighted bouy would have prevented this under the circumstances. Concerning the circumstances of this happening there are three likely scenarios that lead to this in terms of the crew actions and them not having enough rest.
1. The crew member responsible for navigation was not of professional capacity or experience to be in charge of such a task.
2. The crew member was someone occupied with another task that prevented thier properly executing thier duties(sleeping, watching a movie, reading a book, using the head)
3. The crew member was somehow impaired.

Either way, it is quite obvious no system put in place is idiot proof. I think a similar incident would be a unthinkable disaster. Certainly anything is possible, but there are many different scenarios that are more probable in terms of another oil related catastrophy.

 

[The Scotsman]

I lay blame for a systemic failure ultimately.

Agreed! Unfortunately thats usually the way these things happen - in aviation we call it tombstone technology which basically means that we learn by our mistakes (which usually cost lives!)

The far far majority of it, lays at the hands of Joe Hazelwood.

ah c'mon Bunz, surley that's emotional and based on your natural desire for a scapegoat? Based on your assertion above a tad unfair too I suspect. Hazelwood is as much a victim as anyone else in this tragedy, know one came out smelling of roses! The haphazard culture in the industry was probably the main protagonist in this play not the actions or inactions of one man.

Would this event have occurred if the Hazelwoods commands had been passed on during the change of watch keepers? If the coastguard traffic management systems were better? if the pilot had not departed when he did? Who knows, but to single out Hazelwood as the arch villan is tantamount to a kangeroo court verdict.

 

[Federal Farmer]

This certainly is turning interesting.

It's GREAT, isn't it!

I would never do anything myself or encourage anyone else to do so. Let me make that clear to up any confusion, in case it appeared that way. I am merely saying that he certainly would be jeered, and it would not surprise me in the slightest if an individual did something to him. Hazelwood was originally supposed to be picking up litter for his 1,000 hours of community service. They moved him to working in the local soup kitchen due to concerns for his safety.

Great, now that we have that little item cleared up, we can move on. Thank you.

Its Alaska's oil until it is pumped out of the ground. Certainly you are not calling on any government to absorb the costs of the cleanup, are you?

Actually, yes, I am. Alaska benefited from the sale of it's oil to Exxon, Alaska therefore shares in culpability for any damages from that sale. The same thing applies when I buy steel for a project. If the steel fails and damages other parts of the construction as a result, the manufacturer not only has to replace the steel, but they are also bound to repair any damage resulting from the failure of the steel, but as the design/build contractor, I too have culpability to pay for any part of the repairs not directly related to the failure of the steel in order to make my customer as whole as possible. Applying this to the Valdez disaster, Exxon is responsible for the clean up, no question, BUT, the State of Alaska is responsible for any associated damages that were not directly attributable to the spill, even if no such damages would have occurred if the spill hadn't happened.

Plenty of other companies who want that gas. Sounds like Chevron has already expressed interest in the Pt. Thompson leases that Exxon faces to lose. Shell certainly would bid as well. Let them go, that would make tens of thousands of Alaskans overjoyed.

I'm sure it would, in the short term. Exxon has fulfilled their fiduciary responsibilities for the spill, anything else is just sour grapes, and frankly, childish.

Throttle is not a literal term of course. He was drunk while in command of his ship. He needed to be not drinking 4 hours minimum to departure. The Coast Guard were not the first agency to be on the scene in physical contact with the crew. It was the State Troopers.

EVEN BETTER! Why didn't the State Troopers do a Breathalyzer and immediately transport the crew for blood samples? Perhaps it's different than the military (from my era), but Pilots all have a 12 hour minimum, BUT since they had to show up, sometimes as much as 4 hours before their actual mission time for briefings etc., so long as they hadn't been drinking for 12 hours at the time they physically climbed into the cockpit, no problem.

Sigh.
I lay blame for a systemic failure ultimately. The far far majority of it, lays at the hands of Joe Hazelwood. I have said before I am not convinced that a lighted bouy would have prevented this under the circumstances. Concerning the circumstances of this happening there are three likely scenarios that lead to this in terms of the crew actions and them not having enough rest.
1. The crew member responsible for navigation was not of professional capacity or experience to be in charge of such a task.
2. The crew member was someone occupied with another task that prevented thier properly executing thier duties(sleeping, watching a movie, reading a book, using the head)
3. The crew member was somehow impaired.

I cannot for the life of me come to ANY conclusion from what I've read as to why he didn't move back into the shipping lane at the appointed time, as instructed to do so by Capt. Hazlewood. Having said that, there is still no excuse why a lighted buoy, as mandated by Title 33 USC was NOT in place, and functioning on the reef, to visually warn him of the presence of a hazard. If such a buoy HAD been in place, and the Valdez had STILL struck the reef, then there would have been no question but that the SOLE responsibility for the disaster lay with the crew, and the crew alone. As it is, since the buoy was not in place, at least part of the blame must be assigned to the State of Alaska for not complying with the laws and regulations that were in place at that time.

Either way, it is quite obvious no system put in place is idiot proof. I think a similar incident would be a unthinkable disaster. Certainly anything is possible, but there are many different scenarios that are more probable in terms of another oil related catastrophy.

Of course, and we all learn from our errors and omissions, that's life. We can also do the "what if's" until the cows come home, but the fact that this was such an unbelievable confluence of circumstances, in my book it falls into the "sometimes Murphy is a real Mother******" category, and should be looked upon as just that.

 

[Bunz]

Agreed! Unfortunately thats usually the way these things happen - in aviation we call it tombstone technology which basically means that we learn by our mistakes (which usually cost lives!)

Certainly I know where you are going with this, and I dont disagree. Any time a dramatic failure happens, it is a chain of failure, where usually changing one aspect might cause a different outcome.

ah c'mon Bunz, surley that's emotional and based on your natural desire for a scapegoat? Based on your assertion above a tad unfair too I suspect. Hazelwood is as much a victim as anyone else in this tragedy, know one came out smelling of roses! The haphazard culture in the industry was probably the main protagonist in this play not the actions or inactions of one man.

Scotty, I respectfully disagree with your views here. Putting aside all emotional stake in the claim, the ultimate blame lays in the Captain of the vessel. Always Has, Always Will. There are few exceptions to this, without getting into a whole "what if" scenario. While that or any vessel is at sea, the operations of that boat falls on the Captains shoulders.
I myself have paid a stiff fine for fishing with the wrong sized gear mesh. It was off a 1/4", I could blame the net tender hand who crained it over, I could blame the crew who misread the tag, but ultimately, it was me, who hadnt even touched the net, but because it was my net on my boat, and I didnt ensure it, I got the ticket and fine. Cost me $1200 But the responsibility, of that boat and its contents, the crew and its safe operation throughout its operations fall on the Captain ultimately.

Would this event have occurred if the Hazelwoods commands had been passed on during the change of watch keepers?

It shouldnt have. Ships of that size at that time would certainly have the most advanced navigation tools available to civlians including certainly at that time loran and radar systems. Exxon Valdez was a new ship. Less than 4 years old. Very modern and very sound. They hit a clearly marked hazard on thier chart There is no excuse for this by a licensed crew member at that level.

If the coastguard traffic management systems were better? if the pilot had not departed when he did? Who knows, but to single out Hazelwood as the arch villan is tantamount to a kangeroo court verdict.

Well when it comes to the direct operations of that vessel, it is not tantamount to a kangaroo court, Hazelwood was aggregiously negligent through his personal actions. Exxon holds the responsibility of owning the ship and having negligent policies and personel decisions involved with having a known alcoholic, with three previous DUIs and a currently suspended driver's license but was still allowed to command one of the prides of the tanker fleet. They also are culpable because they did not provide a competant crew.
This is what the whole thing boils down to. How much responsibility does Exxon hold as thier punishment for thier responsibility in the spill? What the supreme court did in thier actions, put the ratio for punitive damages to actual damages at 1to1 in maritime cases. This sets a dangerous precedence for future cases. This will be tragic when it comes down to another unthinkable scenario like this. Especially if it were a large loss of human life at fault through negligent acts.

 

[The Scotsman]

Scotty, I respectfully disagree with your views here. Putting aside all emotional stake in the claim, the ultimate blame lays in the Captain of the vessel. Always Has, Always Will. There are few exceptions to this, without getting into a whole "what if" scenario. While that or any vessel is at sea, the operations of that boat falls on the Captains shoulders.

I myself have paid a stiff fine for fishing with the wrong sized gear mesh. It was off a 1/4", I could blame the net tender hand who crained it over, I could blame the crew who misread the tag, but ultimately, it was me, who hadnt even touched the net, but because it was my net on my boat, and I didnt ensure it, I got the ticket and fine. Cost me $1200 But the responsibility, of that boat and its contents, the crew and its safe operation throughout its operations fall on the Captain ultimately.

Hi Bunz - You are quite right about ultimate responsibility but as you say there are circumstances where this gets fudged. I think that this is one of those unfortunate cases. You have probably forgotten much more about this incident than I have ever known so I can only use my frames of reference as a base for our further discussion so please don't get too mad or frustrated with me!

To my way of thinking this incident smacks of a systemic failure rather than pure individual fault. Without wishing to reinvent the wheel let's just explore your problem in context of management structure. Say you had given specific standing instructions to your chief deck hand that your crew were to monitor and control the grade, size and quality of nets to be used on board your vessel, however, as happened something goes wrong and you get hauled up in front of The Man. You get wrapped on the knuckles and ultimately you carry the can, however, your chief has responsibility for daily operational matters over the crew members one of whom (lets say) did not do his job thus:-
1) fault is with the crewman
2) failure is with the chief
3) responsibility is yours
thats' how I view this that ultimately there was at middle management failure - not passing on the Captain's instructions.

What I do not know and where you can put me right is the SOP on board for watch keeping I assume the watch keepers were qualified, I assume they could communicate with each other (a problem on board modern FOC vessels) I assume that navigation charts were up to date etc. etc. I understand your concern about the drinking problem but from conversations with Marine Underwriters in the insurance market (I work in LLoyd's of London although not in the Marine market) it would appear that the Pilot also had this affliction and indeed it was not uncommon in the martime industry generally. Perhaps I'm being somewhat naive but in view of Hazelwoods condition it probably implies a degree of prudence on his part to leave the bridge once the Pilot had departed having left clear instructions as to the further navigation of the vessel per the Pilots instructions and advice?

The other issues regarding coastguard and navigations aids etc. etc. I think are irrelevent in all honesty. I think you are right in pointing to the root cause eminatting from within the vessel itself and not to any major degree any external agency.