APPENDIX B

The New York Times

Saturday, March 25, 1989

This text was found on the first page; it included maps of the area destroyed by the spill.

Largest U.S. Tanker Spill Spews 270,000 Barrels of Oil off Alaska

________________________________________

Exxon Vessel Hits Reef, Fouling Water That is Rich in Marine Life

__________________________________________________

by Philip Shabecoff

A tanker filled to capacity with crude oil ran aground and ruptured yesterday 25 mile form the southern end of the Trans Alaska Pipeline, spewing her cargo into water rich in marine life.

By evening the ship, the Exxon Valdez, had sent more than 270,000 barrels of oil into Prince William Sound, making this the largest tanker spill on United States history.

Opponents of further development of Arctic oilfields quickly seized on the spill as evidence of why they perceive as the environmental risks involved.

No Deaths or Injuries

By early evening the spill was about 5 miles long and 500 feet wide, said Petty Officer John Gonzales, a spokesman for the Coast Guard station at the port of Valdez, from which the Exxon Valdez departed late Thursday, bound for Long Beach, Calif., with her load of 1,260,000 barrels.

Petty Officer Gonzales said that the ship was still leaking late yesterday but that the rate of leakage had slowed, The Associated press reported last night that the amount of oil spilled had reached 270,000 barrels, or about 38,5000 tons.

Petty Officer Gonzales said no one had died or been injured in the accident. he said the Exxon Valdez had been maneuvering around icebergs when she ran aground on Bligh Reef, 25 miles south of the port, about 10:30 A.M. yesterday, Eastern Standard time. Whether the maneuvering was the cause of the accident is under investigation, he said.

Another Ship to Rescue

Another tanker, the Exxon Baton Rouge, bound for Valdez, has been diverted to the distressed ship and will try to take on some of her oil, said a spokesman for the Exxon Company, which operates both vessels. Once some of the oil is removed, an effort will be made to float the Exxon Valdez.

Comdr. Stephan McCall, the Coast Guard commander in Valdez, closed the port to traffic yesterday to ease operations to contain the spill. As a result, the flow of crude oil through the pipeline was reduced from the normal 2 million barrels a day to 1.2 million barrels.

In Washington, the Interior Department said efforts would be made to contain the spill with booms and to skim the oil from the surface with special equipment. The department also said it had given Exxon permission to use chemical detergents and solvents to break up the slick.

Exxon's Assessment

David Parish, a spokesman for Exxon, said the company did not expect major environmental damage as a result of the spill. He said experts from Exxon wee moving to the site to relieve emergency workers from the Alyeska Pipeline Service Company, which manages the pipeline for a consortium of oil companies.

But environmentalists and marine biologists expressed that the spill would cause drastic damage in the abundant marine life in Prince William Sound, including otters, whales, porpoises, sea birds, and fish. They said spill could mean severe losses to Alaska's fishermen, because in this season pink salmon are migrating from the coast to the ocean and herring are moving in toward the shore.

Several environmentalists said the spill raised anew questions about the wisdom of continuing to develop oil on Alaska's North Slope, sending it south across the state through pipeline and loading it onto tankers. They insisted that this kind of accident provided another argument against the Government's plans to open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge on the North Slope to oil development.

Interior Secretary Responds

Manuel Lujan Jr., Secretary of the Interior, said through a spokesman last night that the spill had not changed his support for oil development in the refuge but that he would insist on a full environmental assessment at every stage.

The spokesman said bird experts form the Fish and Wildlife Service had been sent to Alaska to try to save an undetermined number of sea birds already fooled by the oil.

The oil industry has contended that its safety and environmental record in Alaska is excellent and that the fears of opponents of North Slope oil development have failed to materialize in the 12 years since the Trans Alaska Pipeline was opened.

But while this is the biggest tanker spill off Alaska, it is not the first. In 1987 there were two large spills south of Alaska, totaling about 40,000 barrels, and there have been a number of smaller leaks in the area of Valdez.

"This time of year is when whales, dolphins, seals, and sea lions migrate into that area; it is a major feeding ground," said Steven Swartz, a marine mammologist for the Washington-based Center for Marine Conservation. "This is the time of year when fishermen set their nets."

Largest Tanker Spill

Richard Golob, publisher of the authoritative Golob's Oil Pollution Bulletin, based in Boston, said, "This incident is the largest single tanker oil spill in U.S. history." The previous record, by the Argo Merchant off southeastern Massachusetts in December 1976, involved some 160,000 barrels of oil, he said. Each barrel contains 42 gallons.

In the Argo Merchant episode Mr. Golob noted, the oil was carried out to sea by winds and currents. But he Exxon Valdez is spewing oil in a sheltered body of water with many islands, bays and fjords, he said, and so the situation is very different.

"Even if the wind is carrying the oil offshore initially, it will most likely move onto shore eventually," he said. "There is no way out of the sound except through narrow channels," and so there will inevitably be a need for an extensive shoreline cleanup nightmare."

The initial effort to contain the spill entails the use of floating booms to keep oil in a limited area. Then ropes or disks, treated with chemicals that attract oil, are swept through the spill, wrung out and then redeployed.

If this proves ineffective, chemical dispensers can be used to break up the oil into small particles, enabling it to mix with the water.

Gov. Steve Cowper, who arrived in Valdez yesterday to assess the problem, said conventional responses like booms probably would not work, because the spill was so large. "you probably couldn't do it with al the equipment available in North America," he was quoted by the A.P. as saying, "This is a major spill by any reckoning."

Los Angeles Times

Saturday, March 25, 1989

This text was found on page 1; a map was included of the area destroyed by the spill.

Alaska Oil Spill May Be largest in U.S. Waters

By Maura Dolan and Ronald B. Taylor

A Long Beach-bound Exxon oil tanker ran aground on a reef Friday and spilled up to 12 million gallons of crude oil into Alaska's Prince William Sound, a pristine Pacific waterway rich in wildlife, fisheries, and tourist attractions. It was shaping up as the nation's largest oil spill ever.

The Exxon Valdez, a 987-foot tanker owned by Exxon Shipping Co., rammed the Bligh Reef about 25 miles from the city of Valdez, the northernmost ice-free port in the United States at 12:30 a.m.

Exxon spokesman Tom Cirigliano acknowledged the "the ship [was} not where it would normally have been...He [the captain] was trying to avoid the ice" from the nearby Columbia Glacier. The captain "had received permission to maneuver around some ice. We're still trying to assess why it ended up where it did."

Up to 300,000 Barrels Spilled

Cirigliano said Exxon's spill estimates ranged from 170,000 to 300,000 barrels worth--a barrel holds 42 gallons--from a ship that carried 1.3 million barrels of crude. The Coast Guard was estimating that more than a quarter-million barrels had spilled into the sound.

A representative of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service said the tanker had been spilling oil at a rate of 10.000 barrels an hour, but the Coast Guard said the leak had become a mere trickle by 2:30 p.m. Alaska time.

"This is the largest oil spill in U.S. history, and it unfortunately took place in an enclosed water body with numerous islands, channels, bays and fjords," Richard Golob, publisher of the Golob Oil Pollution Bulletin, told the Associated Press.

Cirigliano said late Friday that the oil was "tending to move south , out to sea."

"We've had no report of any wildlife hurt at this time." U.S. Coast Guard Petty Officer John Gonzales said. But environmentalists feared that if the oil reached the shore, marine birds would be threatened. Herring hatch at this time of year and attract up to 20,000 sea birds for the feast. Environmentalists also expressed concern about whales, sea lions, and other wildlife.

Twenty people were aboard the ship but here were no immediate reports of injuries, said Dave Parish, a spokesman for Exxon USA, in a telephone interview from Anchorage. He said three planes from British Columbia, California, and England had been dispatched to the scene for aerial spraying to dilute the oil.

Another Exxon tanker was attempting to pump the oil out of the crippled vessel, and two Coast Guard investigators were on board the Exxon Valdez, he said.

Aerial spraying of oil dispersants was to begin by first light today, Cirigliano said, and containment booms and skimming devices would also be used. Jon Nelson, a deputy regional director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in Anchorage, said the reef ripped a 150-foot gash in the vessel, and there was fear that the tanker could break further apart.

"If it breaks up on the rocks, then anything could happen," he said in a telephone interview. The seas were calm Friday, and the forecast was for continued calm until Sunday.

Infuriated local residents and environmentalists complained about the slow pace of the cleanup.

Critical of Efforts

"Where was the crackerjack response team that was supposed to be out there? They are moving way too slowly," said University of Alaska professor Richard Steiner, who flew over the slick Friday. "There [was] no oil [cleanup equipment ] out there, and its been 14 hours since it happened.

"It is huge, literally huge," he said in a telephone interview from Cordova. "It looks devastating. The slick is probably five miles long by three miles wide. Fortunately, there is no wind...We saw six sea lions inside the slick, swimming, trying to avoid it, and they had no idea which way to go."

Cindy Lowry, Alaska regional director for Greenpeace, also complained about the pace of the cleanup. "It is more than 12 hours later and there is no [cleanup] boom, no sweepers. They are bringing equipment from as far as England. It is just absurd that the equipment is not here already...This will effect everything in the food chain, from crab larvae to orca whales."

At a late-night town-hall style meeting with worried Valdez residents, Exxon officials "assured everyone we will...assume full responsibility for the cleanup and any impact mitigation."

Exxon's Parish said everything possible was being done. "It takes tome to get activated,"he said. The immediate response to the spill was handled by crews from the terminal at Valdez.

Gonzales, the Coast Guard spokesman, said the terminal has cleanup equipment on site for minor spills. He said employees of the Alyeska Pipeline Service Co., which operates the trans-Alaska oil pipeline for a consortium of oil companies, we're getting floating oil booms in place by late afternoon.

Prince William Sound, home to orcas, sea otters, and fur seals, is important to both the fishing and the recreation industries.

"It's a gorgeous marine environment and ecosystem, with lots of little islands and inlets and bays," said Emily Barneet. Alaska issues specialists for the Sierra Club in Anchorage. "It's also a pretty well-established tourist attraction, with sailing and glacier viewing trips. Prince William is a gem."

The spill is expected to add fuel to a campaign by environmentalists to prevent further oil development in Alaska, particularly in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. "It's of concern for two reasons, one is the size of the spill and that this is such a sensitive, very productive area," said Lisa Speer, senior staff scientist with the Natural Resources Defense Council in New York. "This is a consequence of North Slope oil development that is rarely mentioned."

Valdez City Manager Doug Griffen told the Associated Press that the 800-mile trans-Alaska pipeline, which carries oil form Prudhoe Bay to Valdez and the marine terminal, has a good environmental record.

"But this could be a catastrophic occurrence, so we are concerned," he said. "Living in Valdez, we've always worried that sometime something like this could happen."

Chicago Tribune

Saturday, March 25, 1989

This text was found on page 3; it included a map of the area destroyed by the spill.

Oil spill is largest yet off Alaskan coast

Associated press

Valdez, Alaska--A supertanker ran aground on a reef and ripped holes in its hull Friday, gushing millions of gallons of crude oil into pristine Prince William Sound in what industry experts called the largest spill of North Slope crude in history.

The Exxon Valdez, a 987-foot tanker owned by Exxon Shipping Co. Inc., struck Bligh Reef about 25 miles from Valdez, the northernmost ice-free port in the United States. It spilled an estimated 270,000 barrels, or 11.3 million gallons, of oil into the Pacific Ocean, the Coast Guard said.

"The rock they hit is definitely not in tanker lanes," said Coast Guard Lt. Greg Stewart in Juneau. He said the reef is about 1 1/2 miles outside normal lanes.

The tanker initially was losing 20,000 gallons of oil an hour, but it slowed to a trickle later. A 500-foot-wide oil slick snaked about five miles from the ship as wind and tide pushed the crude oil into the sound and away from shore, the Coast Guard said.

Environmentalists and marine biologists expressed fear that the spill would cause drastic damage to the abundant marine life in Prince William Sound, including otters, whales, porpoises, sea birds and fish.

The spill could mean severe losses to Alaska's fisher industry, because in this season pink salmon are migrating from the cost to the ocean, and herring are moving in toward the shore.

Exxon was bringing in three planeloads of cleanup crews from around the world. A spokesman said the company hoped to pump the oil remaining aboard the grounded vessel onto another ship, refloat the Exxon Valdez and clean up the oil.

In Washington, the Interior Department said it had given Exxon permission to use chemical detergents and solvents, which can hurt marine life, to break up the slick.

Coast Guard PO John Gonzales said the tanker's captain may have been maneuvering to avoid icebergs from Columbia Glacier when the vessel ran aground. It was loaded to capacity with 1.26 million barrels of oil that it received at the Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. marine terminal at Valdez before leaving Thursday night for Long Beach, Calif.

Gonzales said employees of Alyeska Pipeline, which operates the trans-Alaska oil pipeline for a consortium of oil companies, were working to contain the oil with floating booms.

But Gov. Steve Cowper, who went to Valdez to evaluate the spill, said experts told him booms would probably fail because the spill is so large.

In addition to the terminal, the community of about 3,000 year-round residents about 125 miles east of Anchorage relies heavily on the fishing and tourism industries. The sound is a playground for kayakers, sport fisherman, and tourists.

Jason Wells, executive director of the Valdez Fisheries Development Association, said he believed the oil slick would cause little damage unless wind pushes it back toward Valdez.

Wells said the black cod fishery is scheduled to begin April !, but the region's major herring fishery is not expected to get underway until mid-April.

But the spill likely will draw increasing fire form environmentalists sensitive about the trans-Alaska pipeline and efforts to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil development.

NOTES FOR EXXON ARTICLES:

FORM AFFECTS CONTENT

New York Times takes a stance that is political, more objective than the other two and shows the issue as "a big picture."

LA Times portrays the spill from a humanist standpoint. They are very critical of Exxon and show a one-sided story.

Chicago Tribune reports the oil spill as minimal and not that big of a deal. We later learn that one of the men on the board of the newspaper was a big stockholder in Exxon Oil.

ISSUES FOR STUDENTS TO CONSIDER

Where is the article in the paper?

Where on the page?

How long is the article?

How big is the headline?

How do these factors affect how important we think the story is?

Are illustrations used?

How do they affect our opinion?

Is anyone quoted, who?

How does their opinion alter the story?

What is the order of the facts?

How does this affect us?

How is language used?