Sunday, April 28, 2013

Getting Even: Retaliation

It is like this:

Just because someone was not fired, that the lies told about them were "unsubstantiated", and now being forced to work and being repeatedly told to stop harassing people...... does not mean being picked on. It is just working in an ethical workplace. It is about getting along and being a "Team-Player". It is about being a decent human being.

No one wants to hate another person, but on the same hand, no one wants to work with someone who is nice to their face and then goes behind their back and attempts to get them in trouble with the "bosses".

It is very difficult to "like" someone when, one is working hard and that someone comes out, leans on the desk & chats all about their personal problems while watching the other person work and not offering to help (especially when it is a part of the job duties to help the staff).

It is even more difficult to hear a person whine about how difficult their life is, how much pain they are in, how they just can't help and then see them go lifting heavy loads when no one is supposedly looking. Especially after just having refused to help someone who is extremely busy & in need of help.

It is really bad when after being "innocently" questioned, 1/2 of the staff's 4 year-old work schedules (which meet the needs of the workplace) are changed by force (due to a Snitch-Baby) but then the same S.B. turns around & schedules their staff as their staff desires, ignoring the workplace directive & needs of the workplace, thus causing the workplace to be short-staffed.

People know what is going on, they are not blind, they are not stupid..... They know treachery when it has been perpetrated upon them and they know by Whom! Being false to someone's face after hurting them, does not make for a comfortable work environment, nor does it make friends.

We ALL Have Pain, We All Have Sorrow, We ALL Struggle to live this life, We All Have difficulty in our lives. So then, continually whining about how miserable of a life, how sick, how poor one is does not make people "friends". It makes for disgust. Some have the decency to keep trials & tribulations private and not wave them like a banner. Pity is not friendship.....

So when it turns against someone, then bullying and retaliation are NOT Acceptable responses! It makes for a more hate-filled work environment.... directed back at the perpetrator. Thus everyone is uncomfortable and unhappy.

Have a problem? Look in the mirror.

Friday, April 19, 2013

Trouble Working With Trolls

What do you do when: the majority of your staff (including the manager) is unhappy due to the terrorist tactics of Petty Tyrants? What do you do when most everyone wants to quit their job?

We use to be a very happy workplace, but now the powers that be (even middle management) are using scare & disciplinary tactics to force the staff into submission. Forcing staff to fulfill impossible goals & performance requirements?

How do you justify spending money on junk/toys/furniture/programming that goes unused by the community?

How do you justify harassing a subordinate, because they report HONEST Statistics?

How do you justify LYING to management about a subordinate because they tell you the truth?

How do you justify disciplining someone because they asked a subordinate for help in a grueling situation?

How do you justify reporting staff for working more than a 5 hour shift (forcing them to have their shifts cut) but turn around & ask your own staff if they prefer 2-4 hour or 1-8 hour shift and give them a choice of days/times to work... when policy states: "For needs of the facility" and their choices leave the facility short-staffed?

How do you justify screaming at your staff for talking to others you hate, but then you spend hours leaning on a public desk talking about your private family dramas to other staff members who could care the hell less...... while they are working their butts off, all the while you refusing to help?

How do you justify wasting $$$$$ ordering materials/supplies not needed, but ignore ordering what is needed?

How do you justify the fact that you blatantly disregard the fact that the CEO told the entire staff that there is $$$ for raises, but then turn around in a meeting (where the CEO is not in attendance) and tell the staff that you are NOT Giving raises..... and your non-management staff hasn't had a raise in five years, but you have your bonuses?

How do you justify pushing someone out of the way when you walk by them, especially when they have arms full?

How do you justify petty harassing actions:
* purposely wearing/using heavy scents that aggravate others asthma/allergies
* use hand sanitizer to clean the telephone handset (after being asked Not to), again knowing it makes people ill
* move the footrest purchased for someone else w/ a need for accommodation and refuse to move it back, but do not ever use the one under your own desk
* complain that you can't help with handling books, yet easily go through all the book donations
* that it hurts to type a book spine label, but can pop out an e-mail complaint or documentation for some fantastical slight pain free

How do you justify staring at a computer screen for more than 7/8 of your shift & still get paid?

How do you justify yelling at staff you are not directly supervisor of: "What are you doing?", but yet refuse to check-on or supervise the staff you are directly responsible for?

How do you justify telling a staff member, who happens to be following policy with out customer complaint, to just forget policy and "over-ride" what ever it is?

Oh Yeah..... I Forgot: Public/Government Employees... No Wonder We Have a Bad Reputation!

I still ♥ what I do, the community I work for and most all of my co-workers.... But I Abhor The Blatant & Purposeful: Bullshit Head Games, Waste of Money, Power Games, Retaliatory Harassment of Myself & Staff, Laziness, Dysfunction & Personality Disorders, and Insecure Snitch-Babies & their Fanciful LIES!

Sunday, April 14, 2013

EXXON: F-ing LIARS

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/04/14/1862721/silver-linings-playbook-exxon-says-wildlife-hit-by-arkansas-spill-were-mostly-reptiles-primarily-venomous-snakes/

Silver Linings Playbook: Exxon Says Wildlife Hit By Arkansas Spill Were Mostly ‘Reptiles, Primarily Venomous Snakes’

By Joe Romm on Apr 14, 2013 at 11:06 am

Oily snakes — or snake oil?
Sure, you thought nothing good could come from ExxonMobil’s pipeline spill of some 200,000 gallons into the residential streets of Mayflower, Arkansas. After all, it was “low-quality Wabasca Heavy crude oil from Alberta.” And a technicality has spared Exxon from having to pay any money into the fund that will be covering most of the clean up costs — a 1980 law ensures that diluted bitumen is not classified as oil.
But ExxonMobil reports from the Mayflower Incident Unified Command Joint Information Center that even this cloud of oil has a silver lining:

The majority of the impacted wildlife has been reptiles, primarily venomous snakes.

Strangely, HuffPost reports, “According to its Facebook page, the Helping Arkansas Wild Kritters (HAWK) Center, which has worked to help scores of animals hurt by the March 29 spill, has not rescued any venomous snakes, but has cared for many birds.”

EXXON's NO PRESS PRESSURE

This is really happening in Arkansas. Exxon is really doing this.

We're relying on you to spread the word - please click LIKE & SHARE:

http://bit.ly/exxoncoverup

(shout-out to the awesome folks at Oil Change International

and Environmental Action who sponsored the PSA with us -

hover over their name and like them up)

Saturday, April 13, 2013

THIRTEEN (13) Oils Spills in Thirty (30) Days!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/heather-libby/13-oil-spills-in-just-30-_b_3065033.html

Moving oil is a dirty business, and never has that been more clear than this past month. In the past 30 days the global oil industry has had 13 spills on three continents. And it's not just pipeline leaks; oil has spilled offshore and on, at train derailments and during routine maintenance. In North and South America alone, they've spilled more than a million gallons of oil and toxic chemicals -- enough to fill two Olympic-sized swimming pools.
How bad has it been? Here's an infographic I made of all the oil spills, leaks and transport derailments in the past 30 days.

"Enough is enough! How many of these accidents do we need to see before we get serious about phasing out our dependence on this dangerous industry. We have a choice to make between charting a course for our future and our children's future. Saying no to the Keystone XL, Enbridge Northern Gateway, Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline and other proposals means saying yes to safer, healthier communities and getting serious about green jobs that we can feel proud of." -- Ben West, Tar Sands Campaign Director for Forest Ethics Advocacy

All spills in order of occurrence:
March 11 - 21: Gwagwalada Town, Nigera

A week-long leak of Kilometer 407.5 NNPC (Nigeria National Petroleum Corp) pipeline. No official number of barrels spilled released, however the spill saturated a hectare (10,000 sq meters) of marshy ground near a major water source.

Tuesday, March 19: Fort Simpson, Northwest Territories, Canada

Enbridge Norman Wells Pipeline leaks 6,290 barrels of crude oil.

Monday, March 25: Fort MacKay, Alberta, Canada

Suncor Tar Sands tailings pond leaks 2,200 barrels of toxic waste fluid into the Athabasca River.

Wednesday, March 27: Parker Prairie, Minnesota, U.S.

CP Rail train derails and spills 952 barrels of Tar Sands crude oil.

Friday, March 29: Mayflower, Ark.

Exxon Mobil's Pegasus Pipeline suffers a 22 foot-long rupture, spilling at least 12,000 barrels of diluted Tar Sands bitumen.

Sunday, March 31: A power plant in Lansing, Michigan, U.S.

16 barrels of an oil-based hydraulic fluid spills into the Grand River

Tuesday, April 2: Nembe, Nigeria

After suffering a reported theft of 60,000 barrels of oil per day from its Nembe Creek Trunkline pipeline, Shell Nigeria shuts off the pipe for nine days to repair damage.

Wednesday, April 3: 350 kilometers southeast of Newfoundland, Canada

A drilling platform leaks 0.25 barrels of crude oil.

Wednesday, April 4: Chalmette, Louisiana, U.S.

0.24 barrels (100 pounds) of hydrogen sulfide and 0.04 barrels (10 pounds of benzene) leak at an Exxon Refinery.

Monday, April 8: Esmeraldas, Ecuador

The OPEC-managed OCP pipeline leaks 5,500 barrels of heavy crude oil, contaminating the Winchele estuar.y

Tuesday, April 9: 29 kilometers Northeast of Nuiqsut, Alaska, U.S.

Human error during maintenance spills 157 barrels of crude oil at a Repsol E&P USA Inc pipeline pump station.

Follow Heather Libby on Twitter: www.twitter.com/heatherlibby

Thursday, April 11, 2013

SIX (6) More Oil Spills: Not in the News!

Elder's Meditation of the Day - April 10
 
"Together we can end the Holocaust against the environment."
-- Haida Gwaii, Traditional Circle of Elders
 
We are all familiar with the Holocaust against the people. When this
happens we feel bad and we vow never to let it happen again. We need to
seriously examine what human beings are doing to the Earth and the
environment. Many species are extinct and many more will become extinct
during the next 10 years. We are methodically eliminating life that
will never return again. Today, we should take time to pray real hard
so we wake up before it is too late.
 
Great Spirit, today, I pray for us to awaken to what we are doing.

Wednesday, April 10, 2013

EXXON: REMEMBER VALDEZ?

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".^{[citation needed]}

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exxon_Valdez_oil_spill

Exxon Valdez oil spill

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Exxon Valdez oil spill
*3 days after Exxon Valdez* ran aground**
Location	Prince William Sound, Alaska
Coordinates	60.83333°N 146.86667°WCoordinates: 60.83333°N 146.86667°W
Date	March 24, 1989
Cause
Cause	*Grounding of the Exxon Valdez* oil tanker**
Operator	Exxon
Spill characteristics
Volume	260,000–750,000 bbl (41,000–119,000 m³)
Area	11,000 sq mi (28,000 km²)
Shoreline impacted	1,300 mi (2,100 km)

The Exxon Valdez oil spill occurred in Prince William Sound, Alaska, on March 24, 1989, when Exxon Valdez, an oil tanker bound for Long Beach, California, struck Prince William Sound's Bligh Reef and spilled 260,000 to 750,000 barrels (41,000 to 119,000 m³) of crude oil.^[1]^[2] It is considered to be one of the most devastating human-caused environmental disasters.^[3] The Valdez spill was the largest ever in US waters until the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill, in terms of volume released.^[4] However, Prince William Sound's remote location, accessible only by helicopter, plane, or boat, made government and industry response efforts difficult and severely taxed existing plans for response. The region is a habitat for salmon, sea otters, seals and seabirds. The oil, originally extracted at the Prudhoe Bay oil field, eventually covered 1,300 miles (2,100 km) of coastline,^[5] and 11,000 square miles (28,000 km²) of ocean.^[6] Exxon's CEO, Mills Dillard, shaped the company's response.^[7]
According to official reports, the ship was carrying approximately 55 million US gallons (210,000 m³) of oil, of which about 10.1 to 11 million US gallons (240,000 to 260,000 bbl; 38,000 to 42,000 m³) were spilled into the Prince William Sound.^[8]^[9] A figure of 11 million US gallons (260,000 bbl; 42,000 m³) was a commonly accepted estimate of the spill's volume and has been used by the State of Alaska's Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council,^[5] the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and environmental groups such as Greenpeace and the Sierra Club.^[4]^[10]^[11] Some groups, such as Defenders of Wildlife, dispute the official estimates, maintaining that the volume of the spill, which was calculated by subtracting the volume of material removed from the vessel's tanks after the spill from the volume of the original cargo, has been underreported.^[12] Alternative calculations, based on the assumption that the official reports underestimated how much seawater had been forced into the damaged tanks, placed the total at 25 to 32 million US gallons (600,000 to 760,000 bbl; 95,000 to 120,000 m³).^[1]

During the first few days of the spill, heavy sheens of oil covered large areas of the surface of Prince William Sound.

1 Identified causes
2 Clean-up measures and environmental impact on the shoreline of Prince Williams Sound, Alaska
3 Litigation and cleanup costs
4 Political consequences and reforms
- 4.1 Coast Guard report
- 4.2 Oil Pollution Act of 1990
- 4.3 Alaska regulations
- 4.4 Opposition to oil drilling
5 Economic and personal impact
6 See also
7 References
8 External links

Identified causes

Multiple factors have been identified as contributing to the incident:

Beginning three days after the vessel grounded, a storm pushed large quantities of fresh oil on to the rocky shores of many of the beaches in the Knight Island chain. In this photograph, pooled oil is shown stranded in the rocks.

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.^[13]
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 boats on course via radar.^[14]

Although popular opinion blamed the accident on the ship's captain, Joseph Hazelwood, who was widely reported to have been drinking heavily that night, he was not in command of the ship. To the contrary, the captain was confirmed to be asleep in his bunk when the ship struck the reef. In light of the other findings, investigative reporter Greg Palast stated in 2008, "Forget the drunken skipper fable. As to Captain Joe Hazelwood, he was below decks, sleeping off his bender. At the helm, the third mate never would 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 [in Exxon's view] just too expensive to fix and operate."^[15] Exxon blamed Captain Hazelwood for the grounding of the tanker.^{[citation needed]}
Other factors, according to an MIT course entitled "Software System Safety" by Professor Nancy G. Leveson,^[16] included:

Tanker crews were not told that the previous practice of the Coast Guard tracking ships out to Bligh reef had ceased.^[17]
The oil industry promised, but never installed, state-of-the-art iceberg monitoring equipment.^[18]
Exxon Valdez was sailing outside the normal sea lane to avoid small icebergs thought to be in the area.^[18]
The 1989 tanker crew was half the size of the 1977 crew, worked 12–14 hour shifts, plus overtime. The crew was rushing to leave Valdez with a load of oil.^[19]
Coast Guard tanker inspections in Valdez were not done, and the number of staff was reduced.^[19]
Lack of available equipment and personnel hampered the spill cleanup.^[17]

Clean-up measures and environmental impact on the shoreline of Prince Williams Sound, Alaska

Workers using high-pressure, hot-water washing to clean an oiled shoreline

There was use of a dispersant, a surfactant and solvent mixture. A private company applied dispersant on March 24 with a helicopter and dispersant bucket. Because there was not enough wave action to mix the dispersant with the oil in the water, the use of the dispersant was discontinued. One trial explosion was also conducted during the early stages of the spill to burn the oil, in a region of the spill isolated from the rest by another explosion.^{[clarification needed]} The test was relatively successful, reducing 113,400 liters of oil to 1,134 liters of removable residue, but because of unfavorable weather no additional burning was attempted.^[20] The dispersant Corexit 9580 was tried as part of the cleanup.^[20] Corexit has been found to be toxic to cleanup workers and wildlife while breaking down oil.^{[citation needed]}
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.^[9]
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.^[21] More than 11,000 Alaska residents, along with some Exxon employees, worked throughout the region to try to restore the environment.

Clean-up efforts after the Exxon Valdez oil spill

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 and a study conducted by NOAA determined that as of early 2007 more than 26 thousand U.S. gallons (98 m³) of oil remain in the sandy soil of the contaminated shoreline, declining at a rate of less than 4% per year.^[22]^[23]
In 1992, Exxon released a video titled Scientists and the Alaska Oil Spill. It was provided to schools with the label "A Video for Students".^[24]

Wildlife was severely affected by the oil spill.

Both the long-term and short-term effects of the oil spill have been studied.^[25] Immediate effects included the deaths of, at the best estimates^{[citation needed]}, 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.^[8]^[26] The effects of the spill continued to be felt for many years^[quantify] afterwards. Overall reductions in population were seen in various ocean animals, including stunted growth in pink salmon populations.^[27] The effect on salmon and other prey populations in turn adversely affected killer whales in Prince William Sound and Alaska's Kenai Fjords region. Eleven members (about half) of one resident pod disappeared in the following year. By 2009, scientists^[who?] estimated the AT1 transient population (considered part of a larger population of 346 transients), numbered only 7 individuals and had not reproduced since the spill, this population is expected to die out.^{[citation needed]} Sea otters and ducks also showed higher^[quantify] death rates in following years,^[quantify] partially because they ingested prey from contaminated soil and from ingestion of oil residues on hair due to grooming.^[28]

Some twenty years after the spill, a team from the University of North Carolina found that the effects were lasting far longer than expected.^[27] The team estimates some shoreline Arctic habitats may take up to thirty years to recover. The spill occurred on March 24, 1989.^{[clarification needed]}^[8] Exxon Mobil denies any concerns over this, stating that they anticipated a remaining fraction that they assert will not cause any long-term ecological impacts, according to the conclusions of 350 peer-reviewed studies.^[28] However, a NOAA study concluded that this contamination can produce chronic low-level exposure, discourage subsistence where the contamination is heavy, and decrease the "wilderness character" of the area.^[23]
As of 2010 there were an estimated 23,000 US gallons (87 m³) of Valdez crude oil still in Alaska's sand and soil, breaking down at a rate estimated at less than 4% per year.^[29]

Litigation and cleanup costs

Eagles rescued from the oil spill

In the case of Baker v. Exxon, an Anchorage jury awarded $287 million for actual damages and $5 billion for punitive damages. The punitive damages amount was equal to a single year's profit by Exxon at that time.^{[citation needed]} To protect itself in case the judgment was affirmed, Exxon obtained a $4.8 billion credit line from J.P. Morgan & Co. J.P. Morgan created the first modern credit default swap in 1994, so that Morgan's would not have to hold as much money in reserve (8% of the loan under Basel I) against the risk of Exxon's default.^[30]
Meanwhile, Exxon appealed the ruling, and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the original judge, Russel Holland, to reduce the punitive damages. On December 6, 2002, the judge announced that he had reduced the damages to $4 billion, which he concluded was justified by the facts of the case and was not grossly excessive. Exxon appealed again and the case returned to court to be considered in light of a recent Supreme Court ruling in a similar case, which caused Judge Holland to increase the punitive damages to $4.5 billion, plus interest.
After more appeals, and oral arguments heard by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on January 27, 2006, the damages award was cut to $2.5 billion on December 22, 2006. The court cited recent Supreme Court rulings relative to limits on punitive damages.
Exxon appealed again. On May 23, 2007, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals denied ExxonMobil's request for a third hearing and let stand its ruling that Exxon owes $2.5 billion in punitive damages. Exxon then appealed to the Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case.^[31] On February 27, 2008, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments for 90 minutes. Justice Samuel Alito, who at the time, owned between $100,000 and $250,000 in Exxon stock, recused himself from the case.^[32] In a decision issued June 25, 2008, Justice David Souter issued the judgment of the court, vacating the $2.5 billion award and remanding the case back to a lower court, finding that the damages were excessive with respect to maritime common law. Exxon's actions were deemed "worse than negligent but less than malicious."^[33] The punitive damages were ruled to an amount of $507.5 million.^[34] The ruling was that maritime punitive damages should not exceed the compensatory damages,^[34] supported by a peculiar precedent dating back from 1818.^[35] Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick J. Leahy has decried the ruling as "another in a line of cases where this Supreme Court has misconstrued congressional intent to benefit large corporations."^[36]

Exxon's official position was that punitive damages greater than $25 million were not justified because the spill resulted from an accident, and because Exxon spent an estimated $2 billion cleaning up the spill and a further $1 billion to settle related civil and criminal charges. Attorneys for the plaintiffs contended that Exxon bore responsibility for the accident because the company "put a drunk in charge of a tanker in Prince William Sound."^[37]
Exxon recovered a significant portion of clean-up and legal expenses through insurance claims associated with the grounding of the Exxon Valdez.^[38]^[39] Also, in 1991, Exxon made a quiet, separate financial settlement of damages with a group of seafood producers known as the Seattle Seven for the disaster's effect on the Alaskan seafood industry. The agreement granted $63.75 million to the Seattle Seven, but stipulated that the seafood companies would have to repay almost all of any punitive damages awarded in other civil proceedings. The $5 billion in punitive damages was awarded later, and the Seattle Seven's share could have been as high as $750 million if the damages award had held. Other plaintiffs have objected to this secret arrangement,^[40] and when it came to light, Judge Holland ruled that Exxon should have told the jury at the start that an agreement had already been made, so the jury would know exactly how much Exxon would have to pay.^[41]
As of 15 December 2009, Exxon paid all owed $507.5 million punitive damages, including lawsuit costs, plus interest, which were further distributed to thousands of plaintiffs.^[42]

Political consequences and reforms

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.^[9]

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.^[43]
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.^[44] In 2002, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against Exxon. As of 2002, OPA had prevented 18 ships from entering Prince William Sound.^[45]
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.^[46]
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 S/R Mediterranean, left harbor after $30 million of repairs.^[45] It was still sailing as of January 2010, registered in Panama. The vessel was then owned by a Hong Kong company, who operated it under the name Oriental Nicety. In August 2012, the Exxon Valdez was beached at Alang, India and dismantled.
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.^[47] Yet Hazelwood said he felt Alaskans always gave him a fair shake.^{[citation needed]}

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). The majority of tankers at Valdez are no longer single-hulled, Congress has enacted legislation requiring all tankers to be double-hulled by 2015.

Opposition to oil drilling

The Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers International Union, representing approximately 40,000 US workers, announced opposition to drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) until Congress enacted a comprehensive national energy policy.

Economic and personal impact

In 1991, following the collapse of the local marine population (particularly clams, herring, and seals) the Chugach Alaska Corporation, an Alaska Native Corporation, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. It has since recovered.^[48]
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.^[49]^[50]^[51]
The economy of the city of Cordova, Alaska was adversely affected after the spill damaged stocks of salmon and herring in the area. Several residents, including one former mayor, committed suicide after the spill.^[52]^[53]