| Summary: | This paper examines the natural resource damages litigation that arose from the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill. The authors compare the outcomes of the federal trial with some evidence, now more than 20 years later, on the long-term impacts of the spill on marine resources and the use of these resources by coastal communities. Because commercial fishermen and Alaska natives were the two main plaintiff groups, this case provides an interesting side-by-side comparison of a market and a nonmarket sector that both utilize the same raw resource base – the fisheries of Prince William Sound and the Gulf of Alaska. The analysis here examines the valuation methodologies from the standpoint of economic theory, regulatory guidelines, the court’s numerous decisions concerning what was admissible into evidence, and the respective outcomes – a jury decision and a settlement just prior to trial. The case may have some relevance for other circumpolar arctic or subarctic regions, such as the North Sea and Arctic Alaska, where expanding oil extraction and development could potentially impact viable commercial fisheries and coastal communities.
Keywords: nonmarket valuation, natural resource damage assessment, subsistence, economic values, oil spill.
Citation: Arctic Review on Law and Politics, vol. 5, 1/2014 pp. 38–74. ISSN 1891-6252
|
|---|