Exxon Shipping Company
Exxon Valdez Oil Spill
Estimated impact: $7B in cleanup and legal costs; irreversible environmental damage
The Exxon Valdez ran aground in Prince William Sound, Alaska, spilling 11 million gallons of crude oil. The captain had a known alcohol problem, the ship was on autopilot with a fatigued third mate at the helm, and Exxon had reduced crew sizes to cut costs. Cleanup was chaotic and ineffective.
Decision context
Whether to reduce tanker crew sizes and maintain a captain with documented alcohol abuse history on active duty, and whether Alaska's oil spill response capabilities were adequate.
Decision anatomy
Red = risk factor present · Green = protective factor present
Biases present in the decision
★ Primary driver · Severity estimated from bias type and decision outcome
Toxic combinations
Reference class base rates
Across all 143 curated case studies in our library:
Lessons learned
- Cognitive misering in crew management: maintaining a captain with documented alcohol issues because he was experienced and replacements were costly
- Status quo bias in oil spill preparedness: Alyeska Pipeline maintained theoretical response plans that were never tested at scale
- Cost-cutting on crew sizes directly contributed to the fatigue that caused the grounding
Source: NTSB Marine Accident Report MAR-90-04 (1990); Alaska Oil Spill Commission Final Report (1990) (NTSB Report)
We caught these patterns in Exxon Shipping Company's own record — before the outcome.
See the full bias auditwe ran — no login, no card. Then run the same 60-second audit on your own next memo.
Or leave your email, we'll run a strategic memo of your choosing and send the readout within a business day.
Workflows that fire on decisions like Exxon Shipping Company’s
The same Recognition-Rigor Framework that documents this case audits memos in the same shape — before the outcome forces the lesson.