National Geographic News
Crude oil from the tanker Exxon Valdez, top, swirls on the surface of Alaska's Prince William Sound near Naked Island Saturday, April 9, 1989, 16 days after the tanker ran aground, spilling millions of gallons of oil and causing widespread environmental damage.

Crude oil from the tanker Exxon Valdez, leaches into Alaska's Prince William Sound on April 9, 1989.

PHOTOGRAPH BY JOHN GAPPS III, AP

Jane J. Lee in Honolulu

National Geographic

Published March 1, 2014

The Exxon Valdez oil spill is not just an awful memory. Oil from one of the most devastating environmental disasters in U.S. history still clings to boulder-strewn beaches in the Gulf of Alaska—and could stick around for decades. Researchers presented evidence of a lingering, foamy, mousse-like emulsion this week at the Ocean Sciences meeting in Honolulu, Hawaii.

Chemical analyses find that this 25-year-old oil is from the Exxon Valdez spill, when the tanker ran aground on Bligh Reef in Prince William Sound (map) in 1989. And to the surprise of the scientists, the oil still has most of the same chemical compounds as oil sampled 11 days after the initial spill. (See "Exxon Valdez Anniversary: 20 Years Later, Oil Remains.")

The oil's presence in areas that were cleaned right after the spill 25 years ago points to the need to monitor certain environments long after the visible effects disappear, the researchers say.

It's Like Mayonnaise

There are two main reasons why there's still oil on some of the beaches of the Kenai Fjords and Katmai National Parks and Preserves in the Gulf of Alaska, explains Gail Irvine, a marine ecologist with the U.S. Geological Survey and lead researcher on the study.

When the oil first spilled from the tanker, it mixed with the seawater and formed an emulsion that turned it into a goopy compound, she says.

"When oil forms into the foam, the outside is weathering, but the inside isn't," Irvine explains. It's like mayonnaise left out on the counter. The surface will crust over, but the inside of the clump still looks like mayonnaise, she explains.

When that foamy oil met the boulders and cobbles of beaches in the Gulf of Alaska, it plopped down between and under the rocks, and it's still there.

Alt tag for SEO or screen readers
PHOTOGRAPH BY GAIL IRVINE, U.S. GEOLOGICAL SOCIETY
Oil is still trapped between and under the boulders on beaches in the Gulf of Alaska.

Protected by Boulders

The boulders on these beaches don't move very much, says Christoph Aeppli, a marine environmental chemist at the Bigelow Laboratory for Ocean Sciences in East Boothbay, Maine. On their most exposed site, the boulders moved less than 3.3 feet (a meter) from 1994 to 2012.

"That stability is what has allowed the oil to persist," Irvine says, even after the beaches were steam-cleaned.

Researchers aren't sure how much oil remains ensconced under these boulders—that would require a different kind of study. "We think it's low levels," says Irvine. "Quite frankly, I didn't think [oil] would be there because it's been so long."

Nonetheless, the oil is there—and is leaking out. Irvine and colleagues collected and tested mussels near these boulder fields and found low levels of Exxon Valdez oil in their tissues.

Irvine says the levels are so low that it probably isn't a cause for concern for the animals. She says the main takeaway from the study is the fact that surprisingly fresh oil can linger in certain environments long after a spill has been cleaned up.

And that means that monitoring an environment after an oil spill isn't a matter of weeks or months but of years and even decades.

Follow Jane J. Lee on Twitter.

5 comments
KENNETH LANE
KENNETH LANE

Oil and it's friends, the politicians and Corporate Scum, will never be a safe fuel sorce.  We need to find ways around oil use.  The days of being stupid should be ending----

Justin Smith
Justin Smith

It amazes me how many people fight tooth and nail against an oil pipeline, when the other methods of transporting oil are  vastly more dangerous for both wildlife and people. I remember the this disaster of the Exxon Valdez and how bad it was. 


Those fighting the Keystone pipeline would rather risk another Exxon Valdez or rail disaster than to have oil transported quite safely via pipeline. 

Viki Banaszak
Viki Banaszak

@Justin Smith No, we would rather do away with fossil fuels all together. It is available. We have the technology to be rid of this and all the other filthy fossil fuels. We could get rid of gas, coal and oil tomorrow and have all the energy we ever need. We could have gotten rid of them all along time ago, but instead of using alternatives we have just gone even further into destroying everything in sight to get more. When the government makes up it's mind to change things, they can, but it has to be in their best interest.

In my lifetime we have gone from cigarettes being .50$ a pack and almost everyone smoking, to them deciding that cigarettes are bad for you. When I was a child you could walk around a grocery store with a lit cigarette. I really don't quite know how that happened. Maybe they didn't throw enough money at the right people. Maybe you couldn't buy the government as easily as you can today (I highly doubt that though) or maybe they didn't play the game right because there are certainly plenty of things that should be changed, but trying to get anything done about it is like talking to a wall. 

KENNETH LANE
KENNETH LANE

@Justin Smith  Replacing one stupid means of transport for yet another is not a smart conclusion----in fact it's asking for trouble.  

Share

Popular Stories

The Future of Food

  • Why Food Matters

    Why Food Matters

    How do we feed nine billion people by 2050, and how do we do so sustainably?

  • Download: Free iPad App

    Download: Free iPad App

    We've made our magazine's best stories about the future of food available in a free iPad app.

See more food news, photos, and videos »