• feature
  • MONDAY MARCH 23 2009 1:00 PM

Stick Your Damn Hand In It: 20th Birthday of the Exxon Valdez Lie



"Gail, Please! Stick your hand in it!"

The petite Eskimo-Chugach woman gave me that you-dumb-ass-white-boy look.

"Gail, Gail. STICK YOUR GODDAMN HAND IN IT!"

She stuck it in, under the gravel of the beach at Sleepy Bay, her village's fishing ground. Gail's hand came up dripping with black, sickening goo. It could make you vomit. Oil from the Exxon Valdez.

It was already two years after the spill and Exxon had crowed that Mother Nature had happily cleaned up their stinking oil mess for them. It was a lie. But the media wouldn't question the bald-faced bullshit. And who the hell was going to investigate Exxon's claim way out in some godforsaken Native village in the Prince William Sound?

So I convinced the Natives to fly the lazy-ass reporters out to Sleepy Bay on rented float planes to see the oil that Exxon said wasn't there.

The reporters looked, but didn't see it, because it was three inches under their feet, under the shingle rock of the icy beach. Gail pulled out her hand and now the whole place smelled like a gas station. The network crews wanted to puke. And now, with their eyes open, they saw the oil, the vile feces-colored smear across the glaciated ridge faces, the poisonous "bathtub ring" that ran for miles and miles at the high tide level.

And it's still there. Less for sure. But twenty years later. IT'S STILL THERE, GODDAMNIT. And I want YOU, dear reader, to stick your hand in it. I want YOU, President Obama, to stick your hand in it before you blithely fulfill your Palin-esque campaign promise for a little more offshore drilling.

***

Tuesday marks the 20th Anniversary of the Exxon Valdez grounding and the smearing of 1,200 miles of Alaska's coastline with its oil.

It also marks the 20th Anniversary of a lie. Lots of lies: catalogued in a four-volume investigation of the disaster; four volumes you'll never see. I wrote that report, with my team of investigators working with the Natives preparing fraud and racketeering charges against Exxon. You'll never see the report because Exxon lawyers threatened the Natives, "Mention the f-word [fraud] and you'll never get a dime" of compensation to clean up the villages. The Natives agreed to drop the fraud charge -- and Exxon stiffed them on the money. You're surprised, right?

***

Doubtless, for the 20th Anniversary of the Great Spill, the media will schlep out that old story that the tanker ran aground because its captain was drunk at the wheel. Bullshit.

Yes, the captain was "three sheets to the wind" -- but sleeping it off below-decks. The ship was in the hands of the third mate who was driving blind. That is, the Exxon Valdez' Raycas radar system was turned off; turned off because it was busted and had been busted since its maiden voyage. Exxon didn't want to spend the cash to fix it. So the man at the helm, electronically blindfolded, drove it up onto the reef.

So why the story of the drunken skipper? Because it lets Exxon off the hook: Calling it a case of "drunk driving" turns the disaster into a case of human error, not corporate penny-pinching greed.

Indeed, the "human error" tale was the hook used by the Bush-stacked Supreme Court to slash the punitive damages awarded against Exxon by 90%, from $5 billion, to half a billion for 30,000 Natives and fishermen. Chief Justice John Roberts erased almost all of the payment due with the la-dee-dah comment, "What more can a corporation do?"

Well, here's what they could have done: Besides fix the radar, Exxon could have set out equipment to contain the spill. Containing a spill is actually quite simple. Stick a rubber skirt around the oil slick and suck it back up. The law requires it and Exxon promised it.

So, when the tanker hit, where was the rubber skirt and where was the sucker? Answer: The rubber skirt, called "boom" -- was a fiction. Exxon promised to have it sitting right there near the Native village at Bligh Reef. The oil company fulfilled that promised the cheap way: they lied.

And the lie was engineered at the very top. After the spill, we got our hands on a series of memos describing a secret meeting of chief executives of Exxon and its oil company partners, including ARCO, a unit of British Petroleum. In a meeting of these oil chieftains held in April 1988, ten months before the spill, Exxon rejected a plea from T.L. Polasek, the Vice-President of its Alaska shipping operations, to provide the oil spill containment equipment required by law. Polasek warned the CEOs it was "not possible" to contain a spill in the mid-Sound without the emergency set-up.

Exxon angrily vetoed ARCO's suggestion that the oil companies supply the rubber skirts and other materiel that would have prevented the spill from spreading, virtually eliminating the spill's damage.

Regulations state that no tanker may leave the Alaska port of Valdez without the "sucker" equipment, called a "containment barge," at the ready. Exxon signed off on the barge's readiness. But, that night twenty years ago, the barge was in dry-dock with its pumps locked up under arctic ice. By the time it arrived at the tanker, half a day after the spill, the oil was well along its thousand-mile killing path.

Natives watched as the now-unstoppable oil overwhelmed their islands. Eyak Native elder Henry Makarka saw an otter rip out its own eyes burning from oil residue. Henry, pointing down a waterside dead-zone, told me, in a mix of Alutiiq and English, "If I had a machine gun, I'd shoot every one of those white sons-of-bitches."

***

Exxon promised -- promised -- to pay the Natives and other fisherman for all their losses. The Chief of the Natives at Nanwalek lost his boat to bankruptcy. His village, like other villages, Native and non-Native, decayed into alcoholism. The Mayor of fishing port Cordova killed himself, citing Exxon in his suicide note.

On the island village of Chenega, Gail Evanoff's uncle Paul Kompkoff was hungry. Until the spill, he had lived on seal meat, razor clams and salmon Chenegans would catch, and on deer they hunted. The clams and salmon were declared deadly and the deer, not able to read the government warning signs, ate the poisoned vegetation and died.

The President of Exxon, Lee Raymond, helicoptered into Chenega for a photo op. He promised to compensate the Natives and all fishermen for their losses, and Exxon would thoroughly clean the beaches.

Uncle Paul told the Exxon chief of his hunger. The oil company, sensing PR disaster, shipped in seal meat to the isolated village. The cans were marked, "NOT FIT FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION." Uncle Paul said, "Zoo food."

Paul didn't want a seal in a can. He wanted a boat to go fishing, to bring the village back to life.

Two years after the spill, Otto Harrison, General Manager of Exxon USA, told Evanoff and me to forget about a fishing boat for Uncle Paul. Exxon was immortal and Natives were not. The company would litigate for 20 years.

They did. Only now, two decades on, Exxon has finally begun its payout of the court award -- but only ten cents on the dollar. And Uncle Paul's boat? No matter. Paul's dead. So are a third of the fishermen owed the money.

***

Lee Raymond, President of Exxon at the time of the spill -- and its President when the company made the secret decision to do without oil spill equipment, retired in April 2006. The company awarded him a $400 million retirement bonus, more than double the bonuses received by all AIG executives combined.

***

Gail's oily hand never made it to national television. The networks were distracted with another oil story.

After sailing back to Chenega from Sleepy Bay, I sat with Uncle Paul, watching the smart bombs explode over Baghdad. Gulf War I had begun.

Uncle Paul was silent a long time. The generals on CNN pointed to the burning oil fields near Basra. Paul said, "I guess were all some kind of Native now."



Greg Palast investigated fraud and racketeering claims for the Chugach Natives of Alaska. Now a journalist whose work appears on BBC Television Newsnight, Palast is the author of the New York Times bestselling books The Best Democracy Money Can Buy and Armed Madhouse. Visit GregPalast.com for more.

 

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5

Next

Comments
RedBstrd

RedBstrd

Riverside, CA
April 2004

MAR 24, 2009 05:59 PM

nicole_powers said:

theconservative said:
my point is, that it's not well written.



I hope theconservative is receiving payments from Exxon's $16 million propaganda and disinformation budget for his comments here. That's the only way they make sense.



No, he's a complete free market fanatic. When he saw that he couldn't spin it in a pro-free market direction, he put a dismissive comment and left.

theconservative

theconservative

Spring, TX
October 2004

MAR 24, 2009 10:37 PM

wow...all i did was criticize the quality of the journalism. i never said that i didn't read the entire thing. i never made one political comment at all about the article (as i can recall). What's everyone so upset about?
"And it's still there. Less for sure. But twenty years later. IT'S STILL THERE, GODDAMNIT. And I want YOU, dear reader, to stick your hand in it. I want YOU, President Obama, to stick your hand in it before you blithely fulfill your Palin-esque campaign promise for a little more offshore drilling."

that paragraph looks like something i wrote in the 6th grade. you guys can say what you want, you can disagree with me that the article was well written. hell, i find james joyce to be terribly boring. that doesn't mean that others won't find him interesting. what's with all the personal attacks?

FellOnEarth

FellOnEarth

Temecula, CA
April 2006

MAR 24, 2009 11:15 PM

theconservative said:
wow...all i did was criticize the quality of the journalism. i never said that i didn't read the entire thing. i never made one political comment at all about the article (as i can recall). What's everyone so upset about?
"And it's still there. Less for sure. But twenty years later. IT'S STILL THERE, GODDAMNIT. And I want YOU, dear reader, to stick your hand in it. I want YOU, President Obama, to stick your hand in it before you blithely fulfill your Palin-esque campaign promise for a little more offshore drilling."

that paragraph looks like something i wrote in the 6th grade. you guys can say what you want, you can disagree with me that the article was well written. hell, i find james joyce to be terribly boring. that doesn't mean that others won't find him interesting. what's with all the personal attacks?

I'm afraid when you start with criticism of others' writing, you open the door to criticism of your own. Sorry but them's the rules. If you noticed Mr. Palast's unique writing style and use of all caps, then I guess it had the intended effect - to draw your attention and affect some sort of response. It seems to me that you engaged in attacking the messenger (or his mode of delivery in this case) instead of actually trying to dispute or challenge the actual message. Don't act so surprised that it irritated a number of other people enough to respond in kind to you.

theconservative

theconservative

Spring, TX
October 2004

MAR 24, 2009 11:20 PM

FellOnEarth said:

theconservative said:
wow...all i did was criticize the quality of the journalism. i never said that i didn't read the entire thing. i never made one political comment at all about the article (as i can recall). What's everyone so upset about?
"And it's still there. Less for sure. But twenty years later. IT'S STILL THERE, GODDAMNIT. And I want YOU, dear reader, to stick your hand in it. I want YOU, President Obama, to stick your hand in it before you blithely fulfill your Palin-esque campaign promise for a little more offshore drilling."

that paragraph looks like something i wrote in the 6th grade. you guys can say what you want, you can disagree with me that the article was well written. hell, i find james joyce to be terribly boring. that doesn't mean that others won't find him interesting. what's with all the personal attacks?

I'm afraid when you start with criticism of others' writing, you open the door to criticism of your own. Sorry but them's the rules. If you noticed Mr. Palast's unique writing style and use of all caps, then I guess it had the intended effect - to draw your attention and affect some sort of response. It seems to me that you engaged in attacking the messenger (or his mode of delivery in this case) instead of actually trying to dispute or challenge the actual message. Don't act so surprised that it irritated a number of other people enough to respond in kind to you.


i never intended to dispute the message. i just said that it was a boring read. if everyone's criticism of me was just my writing (and there's plenty to criticize) that would be fine. but damn, i can handle myself in a political debate. but what exactly was it that i said that drew all that? the fact that the author of the article bores me? boo hoo, if a published writer can't stand up to that kind of criticism, he won;t go far.

theconservative

theconservative

Spring, TX
October 2004

MAR 24, 2009 11:31 PM

MessyJesse said:

theconservative said:
my point is, that it's not well written.



What a rousing criticism. I hope you are a rhetoric professor.


nope, not a rhetoric professor. i suppose that's why i was unable to appreciate the subtlety of all caps.

FellOnEarth

FellOnEarth

Temecula, CA
April 2006

MAR 25, 2009 12:14 AM

theconservative said:

FellOnEarth said:

theconservative said:
wow...all i did was criticize the quality of the journalism. i never said that i didn't read the entire thing. i never made one political comment at all about the article (as i can recall). What's everyone so upset about?
"And it's still there. Less for sure. But twenty years later. IT'S STILL THERE, GODDAMNIT. And I want YOU, dear reader, to stick your hand in it. I want YOU, President Obama, to stick your hand in it before you blithely fulfill your Palin-esque campaign promise for a little more offshore drilling."

that paragraph looks like something i wrote in the 6th grade. you guys can say what you want, you can disagree with me that the article was well written. hell, i find james joyce to be terribly boring. that doesn't mean that others won't find him interesting. what's with all the personal attacks?

I'm afraid when you start with criticism of others' writing, you open the door to criticism of your own. Sorry but them's the rules. If you noticed Mr. Palast's unique writing style and use of all caps, then I guess it had the intended effect - to draw your attention and affect some sort of response. It seems to me that you engaged in attacking the messenger (or his mode of delivery in this case) instead of actually trying to dispute or challenge the actual message. Don't act so surprised that it irritated a number of other people enough to respond in kind to you.


i never intended to dispute the message. i just said that it was a boring read. if everyone's criticism of me was just my writing (and there's plenty to criticize) that would be fine. but damn, i can handle myself in a political debate. but what exactly was it that i said that drew all that? the fact that the author of the article bores me? boo hoo, if a published writer can't stand up to that kind of criticism, he won;t go far.

Historical success defies your point. The kind of bellicose criticism you've presented here is entirely subjective, I'll grant you that. But apparently, you lack an appreciation of tone and emphasis when it comes to artistic expression and style in literary form. Fine, I can handle that, but just don't go so far as to assume that the the world thinks just like you to the point that they will reject an already accomplished writer. If anything, I'd argue that he will "go far" and that his writing style stands up just fine against your "kind of criticism".

You may never have intended to dispute the message, but you've signaled just as much through the passive-aggressive response that you left. The intent of the subconscious mind can be a real bitch when it betrays that of the conscious one. You simply couldn't constrain the need to retaliate against something that challenged your mindset, could you. However you could not refute it through argument or logic and therefore settled for an easy and unnecessary attack against style.

Here's a hint for future reference, when others see an "attack the messenger" ploy, it sends up a red flag since it is a tactic of fallacious argument.

theconservative

theconservative

Spring, TX
October 2004

MAR 25, 2009 12:26 AM

let's be clear. exxon is a motherfucker. i don't disagree with that at all. are we all happy now? it appears that these days SG has become a competition of smart-assedness. i love how we aren't allowed to have any comment about what we like to read and don't like to read. i think this article reads like a fucking high schooler wrote it. simple as that, it bored me and turned me off with the need for all caps. it was a little self righteous, i didn't care for the tone. how the hell do you presume to have any idea of my thoughts on the content of the article? i didn't address it at all.

FellOnEarth

FellOnEarth

Temecula, CA
April 2006

MAR 25, 2009 01:08 AM

theconservative said:
let's be clear. exxon is a motherfucker. i don't disagree with that at all. are we all happy now? it appears that these days SG has become a competition of smart-assedness. i love how we aren't allowed to have any comment about what we like to read and don't like to read. i think this article reads like a fucking high schooler wrote it. simple as that, it bored me and turned me off with the need for all caps. it was a little self righteous, i didn't care for the tone. how the hell do you presume to have any idea of my thoughts on the content of the article? i didn't address it at all.

Most people would just simply shrug and move on, why bother wasting your time to critique a OP's style when it adds nothing of value to the discussion. Because if this comment, you've laid yourself open to analysis and with each subsequent defense, have only managed to crystalize my assertion of your bellicose nature. Such expression of aggressive willfulness is not random and stems from an obvious antipathy towards the original article; the reason why I've inferred that your hostile intent was subconscious, is because you've chosen a method of distracting from the actual content, thereby interrupting rational and relevant discussion... Ugh. Moving on.

spinhouse247

spinhouse247

Punta Gorda, FL
December 2003

MAR 25, 2009 03:16 AM

EPIC FAIL! I'm no hippie conservationist but to this day seeing pictures of wildlife covered in that shit makes me teary eyed. Personally I think the fuckers that were responsible should have been flown over the mess and pushed out of the plane, straight into the water. Sadly the oil tankers aren't any safer to this day and are an invitation to terrorists and pirates...

theconservative

theconservative

Spring, TX
October 2004

MAR 25, 2009 07:56 AM

FellOnEarth said:

theconservative said:
let's be clear. exxon is a motherfucker. i don't disagree with that at all. are we all happy now? it appears that these days SG has become a competition of smart-assedness. i love how we aren't allowed to have any comment about what we like to read and don't like to read. i think this article reads like a fucking high schooler wrote it. simple as that, it bored me and turned me off with the need for all caps. it was a little self righteous, i didn't care for the tone. how the hell do you presume to have any idea of my thoughts on the content of the article? i didn't address it at all.

Most people would just simply shrug and move on, why bother wasting your time to critique a OP's style when it adds nothing of value to the discussion. Because if this comment, you've laid yourself open to analysis and with each subsequent defense, have only managed to crystalize my assertion of your bellicose nature. Such expression of aggressive willfulness is not random and stems from an obvious antipathy towards the original article; the reason why I've inferred that your hostile intent was subconscious, is because you've chosen a method of distracting from the actual content, thereby interrupting rational and relevant discussion... Ugh. Moving on.


holy shit dude, seriously?

FellOnEarth

FellOnEarth

Temecula, CA
April 2006

MAR 25, 2009 05:22 PM

For those interested, Wired recently posted an article covering the likely extinction of a unique killer whale pod affected by the Exxon Valdez spill (alluded to earlier in this tread). Its a sad story and surely I'd like to hear about something more uplifting about these endangered cetaceans like this story, but it's still worth checking out.

DJForce

DJForce

Summerville, SC
November 2008

MAR 29, 2009 01:42 AM

You know what no one has mentioned ... that Exxon spilled all that oil ... and the world is still OK.

Yeah, it made an ugly mess, but you know what? Mother Earth has done far worse to herself (Mt. St. Hellens comes to mind). Maybe we should all just relax.

To the individual who lost their fishing job, you should sew...sue...sui...take Exxon to court. They do have an obligation to pay for their actions. My heart goes out to you for that.

The rest of you...lighten up. We're all going to be OK smile

PS, on a completly unrelated topis, did you know there is a PARK at ground zero in Hiroshima. It's a tourist trap. smile

joker_

joker_

Minneapolis, MN
October 2005

MAR 29, 2009 01:58 AM

DJForce said:
You know what no one has mentioned ... that Exxon spilled all that oil ... and the world is still OK.

Yeah, it made an ugly mess, but you know what? Mother Earth has done far worse to herself (Mt. St. Hellens comes to mind). Maybe we should all just relax.

To the individual who lost their fishing job, you should sew...sue...sui...take Exxon to court. They do have an obligation to pay for their actions. My heart goes out to you for that.

The rest of you...lighten up. We're all going to be OK smile

PS, on a completly unrelated topis, did you know there is a PARK at ground zero in Hiroshima. It's a tourist trap. smile



Science and logic are your enemies?

DJForce

DJForce

Summerville, SC
November 2008

MAR 29, 2009 03:04 AM

joker_ said:

DJForce said:
You know what no one has mentioned ... that Exxon spilled all that oil ... and the world is still OK.

Yeah, it made an ugly mess, but you know what? Mother Earth has done far worse to herself (Mt. St. Hellens comes to mind). Maybe we should all just relax.

To the individual who lost their fishing job, you should sew...sue...sui...take Exxon to court. They do have an obligation to pay for their actions. My heart goes out to you for that.

The rest of you...lighten up. We're all going to be OK smile

PS, on a completly unrelated topis, did you know there is a PARK at ground zero in Hiroshima. It's a tourist trap. smile



Science and logic are your enemies?



Nope. You?

FellOnEarth

FellOnEarth

Temecula, CA
April 2006

MAR 29, 2009 03:52 AM

DJForce said:
You know what no one has mentioned ... that Exxon spilled all that oil ... and the world is still OK.

Yeah, it made an ugly mess, but you know what? Mother Earth has done far worse to herself (Mt. St. Hellens comes to mind). Maybe we should all just relax.

To the individual who lost their fishing job, you should sew...sue...sui...take Exxon to court. They do have an obligation to pay for their actions. My heart goes out to you for that.

The rest of you...lighten up. We're all going to be OK smile

PS, on a completly unrelated topis, did you know there is a PARK at ground zero in Hiroshima. It's a tourist trap. smile


surreal You can't possibly be serious, can you? I'm beginning to think you're bubble boy.

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5

Next