A study just published in the journal Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management concludes that the Prince William Sound ecosystem has fully recovered 17 years after the Exxon Valdez struck a reef and lost 11 million gallons of crude to the Gulf of Alaska. That's not the most interesting part of the study, though.
No, that would be the disclaimer, which I reproduce in full for your convenience:
Disclaimer--The authors wish to acknowledge the financial support provided by ExxonMobil for the time needed to prepare this article; however, the opinions and conclusions expressed herein are strictly those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the opinions of ExxonMobil. We undertook this synthesis review without previous experience in PWS or with EVOS and with the understanding that regardless of the conclusions, this work would be submitted for publication. If anything, we began with a bias toward expecting to find evidence of continuing ecological effects on PWS based on our cursory reading of the popular science and public literature. We also felt, perhaps, an inherent bias, derived from our collective 60 y of experience working in or for the government, toward government-funded science rather than industry-funded science. However, after several years aboard research vessels on PWS, reading virtually all the available literature on EVOS, and applying the objective criteria we previously proposed for assessing ecological significance, we are confident that our conclusions reflect not our bias but rather our professional judgment based on the totality of the available information. Others may well disagree, but we encourage examination of the full literature, as we have done, before reaching conclusions.
Seems pretty clear that the authors, the principles of the enviro consulting firm Harwell Gentile & Associates, are anticipating the inevitable criticisms that will follow widespread coverage of their report.
Such honesty. They admit the bias inherent in their funding and personal baggage. Gotta love that. A shame that such admissions are necessary, I suppose, but what are you going to do? It will be interesting to see how the environmental community reacts.
I was going to leave it that, but because marine mammals are one of my favorite topics, I think I'll make note of the study's conclusions regarding Orca orcinus (killer whales to rest of ya):
We conclude that the only current ecologically significant residual effect from EVOS [Exxon Valdex oil spill] appears to be for 1 pod of orcas but not for the PWS population as a whole. We believe that this continuing effect does not derive from continuing direct or indirect toxic chemical exposures but rather appears to relate to the long-term population dynamics of orcas. In particular, the altered social structure caused by the loss of key matriarchs, which we believe was partly a result of EVOS effects and partly a result from preceding mortality from human conflicts over fish, continues to plague the AB pod.
The problem is that, while all other orca pods in the region have experienced population growth since the spill, the AB pod hasn't. It's stuck at about two thirds of pre-spill size (which was 36). At least three of the lost whales were adult females, which likely explains the failure to repopulate.
So, if that's the only long-term effect of the spill, I think I can hear the petroleum industry arguments already. How much do we care about a few whales in Alaska?
- Log in to post comments
Hmmph. Glad to hear the long-term impact is relatively minor.
Back in 1999, a tanker full of Canola oil spilled into Vancouer Harbour. While not toxic like a petrolium spill, it still messes with the waterproofing on seabirds, sinking ducks and grebes.
Unfortunately, my altiewoo landlady was listening to this while talking on the phone with someone, and the first words out of her mouth were "Did you hear that? Canola oil is bad for you!"
Sigh...
From Discover Magazine (cover date August 2006).
My paraphrase:
Chemist Jeff Short of NOAA says that although the oil is gone from sight, that doesn't mean it's actually gone. About 100 tons remain, mostly buried in the sand where it can still harm animals digging up food. In June the government requested $92 million more in cleanup funds.
"We undertook this synthesis review without previous experience in PWS or with EVOS ..."
Wasn't anybody with experience available?
It's pretty clear that these people think that all global warming is about is a rise in temperature. If that was all that was going to happen, a warmer Canada might be better