Talk:Exxon Valdez

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Exxon Valdez article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

WikiProject Ships (Rated Start-Class) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Ship-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome. Start rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale Mid rated as mid-importance on the assessment scale WikiProject Shipwrecks     (Rated Start-Class) This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Shipwrecks, an attempt to improve coverage of shipwreck-related topics. See also the parent WikiProject, WikiProject Disaster Management. If you plan to work on this article for an extended period of time, please indicate what you are doing on the Project's talk page. NB: Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritising and managing its workload. Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the Project's importance scale. Shipwreck-related priority open tasks: To Do Shipwrecks Clean up typos Improve grammar Add any additions if needed Discuss desired additions Cattewater Wreck Needs expansion Done Shipwrecks Re-wrote the first paragraph Cleaned up Types of Shipwrecks it felt a bit jumbled Cattewater Wreck Started the article WikiProject Environment (Rated Start-Class) Portal This environment-related article is part of the Environment WikiProject to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. See WikiProject Environment and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ. Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.

Contents 1 Missing ship 2 Sea River Mediterranean 3 Amount spilled 4 Renaming? 5 Prohibited by law from entering PWS... 6 Made improvements 7 Hazelwood Information 8 Fine

[edit] Missing ship

Thought: How can you hide an oil tanker in an undislosed port? I mean, there aren't many things made by man bigger than the Exxon Valdez. -Litefantastic 20:13, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

The Great Wall of China? The NASA Vehicle Assembly Building? Perhaps a List of large things made by humans is in order? Mark Richards 20:20, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

Maybe there are, and they're hidden. NORAD, for example. Area 51. RealGrouchy 17:07, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Area 51 isn't hidden, it's anything but hidden. It's a massive open air testing and development facility for new aircraft, probably the most (in)famous one in the world. I've got a gigantic blown up photograph of the base taken from a satellite... nothing secret or interesting about it other than the related UFO conspiracies.--▫Bad▫harlick♠ 15:58, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sea River Mediterranean

The SR mediterranean is still in service. Possibly Middle East to Japan.KAM 17:22, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Are you sure? I had understood it was mothballed off the coast of Africa. Wadsworth 20:06, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

S/R Mediterranean was laid up Sept 2002 then reativated in Jan 03. In March 05 it was reflagged to the Marshall Island. KAM 23:43, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Amount spilled

Right now, the article states that 30 million gallons were spilled (could this perhaps be restated in metric units?). However, according to a recent news article at http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/nation/20060202-1336-wst-tankeraground.html , only 11 millions gallons were spilled. Which is it?

It will never be known exactly, but the best estimates say about 30 million. The 11 million figure was reported by Exxon early on, but was based on their estimates of oil pumped from the ruptured tanks. It later turned out that it was mostly seawater that had displaced the oil. The media has latched onto the initial 10.8 million figure, though, so they consistently get it wrong. You can read about it here at http://www.soundtruth.info/sidebar1.htm Wadsworth 20:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

How would seawater displace oil inside the ship? Oil is lighter then water. Inside a loaded tanker the level of the cargo is higher then the outside sea level. Given calm sea conditions if the hull is holed below the water line the level of the cargo would drop until hydrostatic pressure inside and outside is equal. Most of the oil would remain inside. Also not all the cargo tanks were opened to the sea. It was something like seven out of ten. That web page looks like an ad for a book. KAM 12:50, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, interesting about the hydrostatic pressure. Makes sense to me. Now that I think about it, the reference to seawater "displacing" the cargo of oil probably came from my own reasoning; it's my own word. I apologize! Also, I didn't intend to make an ad for a book or anything. I did buy a copy of the book when it came out, and read through it. Pretty interesting stuff, if you're into that sort of thing (turns out I wasn't quite as interested as I thought I might have been). What remains is the evidence that the calculations made by Exxon on how much oil spilled are highly suspect, especially considering that nobody would buy the lightered cargo, due to excessive seawater. Wadsworth 23:37, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

1 per cent is considered excessive water for many oil cargos. Riki Ott's main argument is that the tankers used for lightering returned to Valdez with ballast water aboard. Tankers are either laden (loaded) or in ballast. When the load, they discharge ballast, when they discharge cargo, the take on ballast. The amount of ballast required for the ballast voyage is not related to the amount of water in the cargo.There is no relationship between the amount of water in the cargo of the EV and the amount of ballast aboard the returning tankers. Ott claims that the ballast came from the cargo tanks of the EV but has no proof and the claim maks no sense.

The amount spilled was determined by two different methods. The amount of cargo removed, and from sounding the tanks while the EV was aground. The amount of cargo remaining aboard during the salvage would of great interest to the salvors trying to refloat a tanker. The web page above simply say that the soundings were in error because of water in the tank. This is a common problem and tankermen and salvors are capable of finding the oil/water interface and determing the amount of oil aboard the ship.

Here is an explaination of how most of the cargo would remain in tanks: http://darwin.nap.edu/books/0309043778/html/73.html

This is an article from the Anchorage paper summing up the argument that more oil was spilled: http://www.anchoragepress.com/archives-2004/newsvol13ed11.shtml Ott does not show how the oil came out of ship and has no proof the ballast returned to Valdez came from the EV. The amount Exxon uses is also the amount the State of Alaska, NOAA, U.S. Coast Guard and Alaska Dept of Environment and other parties hostile to Exxon use. I think the article should show the 10.8 mg figure unless there is more proof that the State of Alaska is wrong and that the page Ott is using to sell her book is correct. KAM 23:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, especially for the links on hydrostatic pressure, and amount of oil spilled. I especially likes the second article. It should be cited in this article's text. My concern is that your stance doesn't match what is presented in the article, by a long shot. For example, you said that finding the interface between oil and water is easy. But contrast that with this sentence from the article you referenced:

“It is always difficult, even in ideal situations to differentiate between emulsified oil and water, and oil, and in this case very large quantities of water was apparently measured as oil."

The article cites experts as saying that a minimum of 25 million gallons spilled. It also says that Exxon as stood by it's numbers. It seems to conclude that the issue has never resolved.

I will look at the text of the article, and see if an adjustment to the wording should be made. I will certainly cite the reference you so helpfully supplied. Wadsworth 17:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Renaming?

I read somewhere that the Valdez was renamed upon its reactivation. Can anyone confirm? SteelyDave 03:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Google "S/R Mediterranean" Marshall Islands, you will get a some trade news type articles. KAM 15:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

should be called "the ship in waterworld"

[edit] Prohibited by law from entering PWS...

...is that because it belongs to a specific class of ships, or was that specific ship explicitly banned? If so, by who? Thanx 68.39.174.238 09:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe it is because the ship does not comply with the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90), not because of any bias against the ship.Offshore1 03:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

1990 Oil Pollution Act prohibits any ship from operating in the sound if it has spilt more than one million gallons of oil. The sister ships to the Valdez are allowed. KAM 13:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks -- I learned something today! Offshore1 15:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Made improvements

I've made a few improvements to the article. I changed some stuff to read in past tense, and just now realised that it was probably a bad idea, since the ship still exists, it just operates under a different name. I'll go back and correct this.--▫Bad▫harlick♠ 15:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hazelwood Information

Someone with an interest may want to reconcile the information on this page about Joseph Hazelwood (the Captain) with the information presented on his own page, as they're quite different and even contradictory. Azazelx 17:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fine

Exxon was levied a fine for all this, how much was it? kpturvey 7:52, 13 September 2007 (EST)

Exxon spent some 2.2 billion dollars cleaning up the affected areas, don't know how much the fine was though.--64.230.94.27 02:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)