|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
How Much Oil Remains? |
What was the ultimate fate of the 10.8 million gallons of oil released from the Exxon Valdez?
|
Nobody knows for sure, but based on the areas that were studied in the aftermath of the spill, scientists made estimates of the ultimate fate of the oil. A 1992 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) study provided some insight, estimating that the great majority of the oil photolysed in the atmosphere, dispersed into the water column or degraded naturally (biodegraded by microorganisms or photolysed in the water). Cleanup crews recovered about 14 percent of the oil, and approximately 13 percent sank to the sea floor. About 2 percent (some 216,000 gallons) remained on the beaches.
![]() |
|
Whodunit?
Fingerprinting Oil
|
Considering that nearly 11 million gallons escaped from the tanker, and that large quantities eventually fouled shorelines in the sound and elsewhere, very little remains. The graph below shows actual measurements made by NOAA scientists at their study sites in Prince William Sound from 1989 to 1997.
![]() |
||
|
The observed maximum
percent of the surface covered by oil at eight NOAA study sites
in Prince William Sound, 1989-1997. Values are mean percent
cover of oil. |
||
|
At the sites being studied by scientists, surface oil had all but disappeared
by 1992, three years after the spill. The apparent increase in surface oiling
in 1991 (two years after the spill) was likely to have been caused by heavy equipment
digging up buried oil
(called "berm relocation"),
which was used as a remedial technique
that year.
However, oily traces of the spill can still be found
on some beaches. The remaining oil generally lies below
the surface of the beaches in places that are very sheltered from the
actions of wind and waves (which help to break down and remove stranded
oil), and on beaches where oil initially penetrated very deeply and was
not removed. At these beaches, there are signs of weathered
oil on the surface and deposits of fresher oil buried beneath.
Sometimes this oil makes its way to the surface and can be seen as a
sheen on the water as the tide comes in.
Interestingly, despite the fresh appearance of oil at these sites, chemical
analysis and biological observations indicate that the oil is actually
of such low toxicity that many intertidal organisms can
tolerate its presence, even though it can accumulate in their tissues.
|
One of the scientists' goals is to determine whether this residual oil is causing environmental harm to organisms living there, since one of the most difficult questions to answer during any oil spill is, "How clean is clean?" That is, when does cleanup begin to cause more harm than simply leaving the oil in place to degrade naturally?
In addition, reports both in the news and in scientific journals have stated
that not all of the oil found in Prince William Sound can be traced back to the Exxon
Valdez. This is not surprising. Many potential alternate sources of hydrocarbons exist in the marine environment, even
in a region that is relatively unpolluted. As examples:
Some of the hydrocarbons are natural, coming from undersea oil seeps or forest fires.
Others are definitely of human origin, such as the rupturing of
oil storage tanks during the Alaskan earthquake of 1964, the pumping of ship
ballast tanks, and fuel leakage from commercial ships and recreational boats traveling through the area.
|
Chemists who "fingerprinted" hydrocarbon residues in both beach sediments and in animal tissues found that not all of the oil came from the Exxon Valdez. More recently, the highest concentrations of oil in mussel tissues have come from small boat harbors and diesel fuel. However, scientists hypothesize that most of the oil contamination found in Prince William Sound does trace back to the Exxon Valdez.
|
|