Talk:List of oil spills

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

ordered by size[edit]

Should it not be ordered by size? 218.102.68.100 12:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This list should be made a changeable chart, by date, size of spill, alphabetical order, depending on the viewer's need, but I don't know how to do it, despite Help:Table#Sorting and Help:Sorting. Anyone? --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 02:09, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not 100% what you mean by changeable. I do know that I can sort the chart though based on any field. I use internet explorer. NickCT (talk) 15:41, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't working when I asked. --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 06:03, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although I too would like to see a version of this list in order of size, the chronological listing is less controversial, more editable and arguably easier to use in order to find a specific spill. Banjoboye (talk) 22:00, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The source for the table is listed in chronological order to make it easier to enter and edit data. However, the displayed table can be sorted on any column by clicking the [><] box in the header row. Johnson487682 (talk) 17:36, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't volume (in litres) be better to use than mass (tonnes)? 76.11.0.182 (talk) 08:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so, because volume (whether litres, gallons, or barrels) would have more zeros after each number, and this would make the values less readable. Tonnes can be easily converted to volume using the factors given at the top of the page. Johnson487682 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:34, 21 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Be nice if you could sort by size and also by date, if you could export to Excel you could do this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.46.198.230 (talk) 01:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "Occurred" table is already sortable. You can easily sort by size, date, or any other column: just click the box at the top of the column. Click here for examples of how sortable tables appear in your browser and other information. Johnson487682 (talk) 13:31, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Link" column[edit]

The links should be used and formatted as references, hopefully removing the need for their own column altogether. Any links that are not references should be removed or moved to the external links section. --Ronz 15:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Location[edit]

Locations of oil spils are not very precise, and I know some of them such as Erika's (1999) or Prestige's (1999) to have flown very far from the location, at the English Channel limits for the lattest. 82.240.207.81 (talk) 23:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

West Cork spill[edit]

Just a quick question, where did the number 300.000 tonnes come from? According to the main page for West Cork spill, it puts the number at between 1000 and 300 tonnes, unless im misreading something. It would still make the list, just a bit further down(Above the 07 San Fran spill if im not mistaken) Thanks - Kris 81.229.60.2 (talk) 02:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, it came from a copying mistake which I made, and for which I apologize. I have checked the history of List of oil spills and the history of West Cork oil spill, and I have amended the figure and moved the entry. In my edit summary I quoted from the article some other estimates, and I have retained the question mark after the figure.
-- Wavelength (talk) 05:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1971 oil tanker collision off golden gate bridge[edit]

No article on this? i believe it was a major spill outside the sf bay, with political/environmental consequences. mercurywoodrose.75.61.128.148 (talk) 07:39, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a link to a source, please provide it. Better yet, just update the article (but only if you have a verifiable source. N2e (talk) 17:23, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • plus Added Arizona Standard / Oregon Standard tanker collision aka '1971 Golden Gate Bridge spill' --emerson7 23:03, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oil Spills Not Yet Listed in this Wiki[edit]

1. 1971 oil tanker collision off golden gate bridge "While serving at the Presidio in 1971, [now retired U.S. Army Lieutenant Colonel Harry Humphry] Mellon was responsible for coordinating the massive Federal Cleanup effort after the collision of two oil tankers under the Golden Gate Bridge." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Humphry_Mellon There does not appear to be a wiki for this spill.

2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murphy_oil_spill_%28Chalmette,_Louisiana%29 states The Murphy Oil Spill was a "1,050,000 gallon spill." I believe this is correct. The Murphy Spill is also noteworthy because, among other things, it was perhaps the largest of many poorly documented spills in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.

3. If your favorite oil spill is not in this wiki, check here: http://www.marinergroup.com/oil-spill-history.htm Banjoboye (talk) 01:58, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is #1 possibly the same oil spill that is mentioned by 75.61.128.148 in the previous section? Johnson487682 (talk) 19:39, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • plus Added Murphy Oil USA refinery spill --emerson7 20:18, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • plus Added Arizona Standard / Oregon Standard tanker collision aka '1971 Golden Gate Bridge spill' --emerson7 23:03, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • plus Added the other "spills in the wake of Hurricane Katrina" by expanding the Murphy Oil row. Several of these were larger than Murphy, although Murphy appears to have had the greatest detrimental impact. Johnson487682 (talk) 15:20, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
these are discrete spills that where possible should be listed separately. --emerson7 15:45, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Fixed Johnson487682 (talk) 16:10, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

4. Bodo, Ogoniland oil spills 2008-2009, described as one of the world's most devastating. See articleGreenman (talk) 10:06, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although I find these articles (1 2 3) corroborating the spills linked above, I can't find details for the dates and quantities associated with each individual spill. I've only found "2008 and 2009" and total estimates of "280,000 barrels" and "could be as much as 10 million gallons" (i.e. 238,000 barrels). Can anyone find better details? Johnson487682 (talk) 16:38, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BP spill in Aug '06[edit]

What about the BP spill in Aug '06? 203.218.227.203 03:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reference? Kittybrewster ☎ 07:52, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[1] - Kittybrewster ☎ 06:43, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Column for Operating Company[edit]

Quick suggestion- what are folk's thoughts on adding an additional column which give the owning &/or operating company of the vehicle / facility? --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 22:25, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's potentially contentious, because adding names to the list implies blame, but the owner/operator isn't necessarily found to be at fault in each case. If anyone wants more information about owner/operator, they can click through the link to the original article/story. Johnson487682 (talk) 17:39, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Johnson467682 for the same rationale s/he articulated. N2e (talk) 17:21, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Johnson467682. I know how much everyone likes pointing the finger at BP recently, but this isn't a great idea. NickCT (talk) 17:23, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have to agree with the original suggestion, though I'd make the column for the OWNER of the oil that spills. They are the ones that chose the operator and operations that lead to a spill. The owners of the oil often try to hide behind people (operators) and things like where a ship was registered. Swan-PNW (talk) 22:04, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How can anyone define an "owner" of oil that hasn't been collected yet? Johnson487682 (talk) 13:42, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

flagicons[edit]

per MOS:FLAG, i should think the country flag is sufficient enough to identify the location of the these spills, and the secondary and tertiary flags are just kruft that impedes page loading. --emerson7 20:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

location column[edit]

i'm wondering if it might be better to list 'country' in the location field first to help facilitate a better column sort. --emerson7 12:07, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "location" sorting works great now--great suggestion! Johnson487682 (talk) 17:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spill/vessel column[edit]

The entries in this column are being handled a little inconsistently. Some spills have names (e.g. "2010 Great Barrier Reef oil spill"), others are listed by the vessel that was the source of the spill (e.g. "Full City oil spill"), and other spills came from an immobile source (e.g. "Jiyeh power station oil spill"). Also, many entries in this column begin with a date, making sorting problematic.

I propose changing the column title to "Source" and listing every entry with simply the name of the vessel (e.g. "Full City") or other source (e.g. "Jiyeh power station"), and then appending a popularly-known name in parentheses if applicable (e.g. "Shen Neng I (2010 Great Barrier Reef)") in order to provide a link to the wiki article about the spill (if one exists).

I also suggest eliminating the words "oil spill" from entries, because that is the topic of the page, and they are all oil spills. Johnson487682 (talk) 13:54, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems reasonable. NickCT (talk) 14:28, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
omitting 'oil spill' does seem reasonable, but i'm not sure changing the column heading to 'source' would be that helpful since in many cases the the source is not what the spill is known by. --emerson7 15:23, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I support the general idea of rationalizing that column. I don't think merely removing "oil spill" fixes it though. I think it would be helpful to know if the source was from a ship, overland pipeline, subsea pipeline, above ground wellhead, subsea wellhead, storage tank, or what? The name itself often does not convey this information. So could we add the source name and also the source type in that column? Other ideas? N2e (talk) 17:20, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It would seem that the first column should simply be "Name". This column should be the designator of the spill, and simply used to differentiate from other spills. The oil spills should be listed by name and not by vessel. And, of course, the word "spill" itself is redundant. The source of the name is not important, except that it be as universally recognizable and unique as possible. Sometimes the name is used to imply the cause, but that is not always possible or accurate or to be expected. Therefore, that should be avoided. Accuracy is more important that implications. Also, "Source" would probably not be a good idea since it is sometimes difficult to determine, especially if people confuse it with the cause. Anyway, my two cents. - KitchM (talk) 03:19, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deepwater Horizon oil spill low end adjustment?[edit]

It appears BP is now distancing themselves from the 700 ton per day (5,000 barrels) flow rate estimate according to this link. They don't really seem have an estimate anymore. In addition, BP says they are recovering about 5,000 barrels per day and everyone is agreeing they aren't recovering all that is being leaked. So should the 700 ton low end estimate be eliminated and replaced with new "official" low end estimate of a little more than 1,600 tonnes (12,000 barrels/7.33 = 1,637)? Thanks! Patken4 (talk) 20:49, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. What's the source for the new low end estimate? Green Cardamom (talk) 21:58, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't seen anything recent with a lower estimate than the governments 12,000-19,000 re-estimate from last week, which is why I think 12,000 should be the new low estimate. Quote from a WSJ article - "But some of the researchers who came up with the range of 12,000 to 19,000 say that is merely the minimum amount gushing out, not the lower and upper limits." Source. Patken4 (talk) 22:23, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated the low estimate to 1,600 tonnes since there was no disagreement. Patken4 (talk) 11:40, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Minimum size for inclusion[edit]

The article should have a minimum spill size for inclusion, or some other metric for notability. The Nigeria Delta, for example, has over 300 oil spills every single year. Currently the article only lists 2 Nigerian spills, out of 10s of thousands that have occurred there over the past 50 years or so.

The article appears to want to be a list of "major" oil spills, not "every" oil spill, which is too broad to be meaningful. Green Cardamom (talk) 21:57, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What about keeping in this list only spills with more than 100 tonnes?--Evenfiel (talk) 16:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure quantity is a good metric. Some small spills have a disproportionately large environmental or financial impact, or they are interesting for some other reason. I contend that if a spill is sufficiently noteworthy for a person to go to the effort to write a wiki article about it or add it to the list on this page, it deserves to be here. Conversely, we don't need to aggressively seek out and add to this list every barrel that gets tipped over. Johnson487682 (talk) 13:54, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If a spill results in significant third party coverage, enough to establish WP notability at the time of the occurrence, it should be included here. if no article is written yet, references showing the likelihood of an article being written. we have one here, the 1971 sf bay oil spill, which was highly notable at the time in the region, and will eventually get an article written about it. I agree volume of the spill is not a good metric. a small spill in the wrong area could easily garner a lot of attention.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed Evenfiel deleted "2010 Great Barrier Reef oil spill / MV Shen Neng 1" on 2010-05-31, apparently because it was only 3-4 tonnes. However, I believe the recent discussion on this talk page topic justifies restoring it, because the damage to the reef was ecologically significant, numerous news articles are quoted, and improvements to legislation and/or vessel tracking may result. Johnson487682 (talk) 17:03, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly agree. - KitchM (talk) 03:23, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article importance[edit]

Anyone editing this article should note the obvious: prior to the gulf spill, this article got about 100 hits per day. now its getting over 2000 hits per day. this is a very important article serving as a gateway for people researching the subject.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, indeed! This has become a significant nexus for ongoing research regarding non-renewable resources usage and the related ecological impact. It remains one of the most important articles in the 'pedia. - KitchM (talk) 03:27, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Ivan[edit]

I added a row for multiple spills in Louisiana following Hurricane Ivan (http://www.darrp.noaa.gov/library/pdf/IvanPADR_FINAL.pdf). I know there were also multiple spills in the Gulf of Mexico at the same time (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article533379.ece says 7 oil rigs were sunk, 24 were badly damaged, and many pipelines were ruptured), but I can't find details. Can anyone help? Johnson487682 (talk) 15:52, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I broke this out into separate rows for the three events with known quantities. I don't know what to do with the other five events with unknown quantities (on page 18 of http://www.darrp.noaa.gov/library/pdf/IvanPADR_FINAL.pdf), and I still have no source for the Gulf of Mexico spills that occurred at the same time. Johnson487682 (talk) 16:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Units of Tonnes[edit]

Oil is usually measured in barrels. Why are you listing it in tonnes? That's not even a volume, it's a weight. Recommend revising the article to use barrels. --71.214.221.153 (talk) 21:12, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to this page's revision history, the unit "tonne" has been used on this page since numbers were first added to it on 24 January 2007. So, I can't tell you why that editor chose tonnes, but I think it makes sense:
  1. It keeps things in perspective. The news media prefer gallons or barrels, because all those zeros make the quantity look huge. By using tonnes, we are implicitly stating that a spill of a few gallons (or a few barrels) isn't particularly noteworthy, unless it adds up to tonnes.
  2. It forces us to check our units. Referenced sources sometimes use gallons and sometimes barrels, and some wiki editors forget there is a big difference between 1 bbl and 1 gal. By requiring every editor to convert to tonnes, we are forcing ourselves to double-check the units listed in the reference.
Johnson487682 (talk) 14:52, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will second this part because the conversion seems to be wrong. 13,600 tonnes * 7.33 (bbl / tonnes) = 99,688 bbl. Which of the three estimates were used? The most current one for deepwater horizon has it to be in the 20,000 to 30,000 bbl. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reddwarf2956 (talk • contribs) 04:19, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is clear from the comments in the wiki source that an upper-bound estimate of 100,000 bbl/day is being used to calculate the worst-case max tonnage. We are still waiting for the Flow Rate Technical Group to provide a revised upper-bound estimate. Johnson487682 (talk) 14:52, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just realized another reason to use tonnes: the carrying capacity of every tanker is given in deadweight tonnes (DWT) when it is registered. So, in the case of spills from tanker ships, the maximum amount of oil that could be spilled from a leaking vessel is known as a mass in tonnes (not necessarily as a volume in bbl, gal, or L). Johnson487682 (talk) 13:53, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can we update the min/max spilled tonnes from the Deepwater Horizon every day?[edit]

With the formula of days times 1,400/12,000. I'd love to do it, as it makes more accurate -- but is it accurate? or allowed? Thank you. Teafico (talk) 19:22, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The total accumulation is being updated every few days. The formulas in use are listed in the wiki source. You're welcome to take a turn updating the total, but don't change the formula without adding a reference for an updated flow rate estimate. Johnson487682 (talk) 14:55, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paring down the "ongoing" table. Re this edit[edit]

Per the edit above; We need to cut down the size of the notes material in the table. I appreciate Johnson's edit summary, but we don't format WP pages for benefit of editors. We format articles for the benifit of readers, and I think we can all agree that having excessive material in the notes section is not to the readers benefit. NickCT (talk) 13:55, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • i think i would would have to agree. it's not really necessary to over-bloat the table particularly when the specifics of the spill are covered in the article. --emerson7 21:28, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your points are valid, and I concur. However, I think
  • the Deepwater Horizon row's notes must retain some abbreviated mention of the reason for two flow rate estimates, because all the numbers in that row are confusing otherwise
  • the Taylor Energy wells row's notes must mention the Ocean Saratoga, because the original (erroneous) news reports that triggered the addition of this row referred to it as the "Ocean Saratoga spill"
Perhaps the additional information in the notes (such as the sources of the differing flow rate estimates, which really is only useful to editors) can be moved to comments in the wiki source for the table? Johnson487682 (talk) 13:41, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

checkY I have shortened the notes in the "ongoing" table while trying to retain some key points affecting interpretation of the table itself. What do you think? Johnson487682 (talk) 13:56, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Italics[edit]

I'm having trouble figuring out what should be in italics. Is this right:

  • Places and companies no italics.
  • Rigs and wells in italics.

What about: Ixtoc_I_oil_spill? "Ixtoc I" in italics. "Oil spill" no italics, right? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:58, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Manual of Style has some general guidance on using italics, and the Ship template points out that names of vessels should be italicized in article text (but not in article names). "Ixtoc I" was the name of a well that was being drilled by the vessel "Sedco 135F", so Ixtoc I is not italicized, but Sedco 135F is. To answer your question specifically:
  • Places: no italics
  • Companies: no italics
  • Wells: no italics
  • Rigs: no italics, unless it is a ship. So, an offshore oil platform that stands on the ground in shallow water has no italics, but a floating or submersible one has italics.
Johnson487682 (talk) 14:06, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very helpful. Thank you. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:57, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Related Expansion Ideas[edit]

I wanted to get everyone's feelings on these ideas.

Would it be helpful to have a simple list of number of spills by country? This would provide a running total of all spills, regardless of size, and would be referenced from another page of any size spill as people wished to add them. There would be one page per country. Only the accumulating totals would be shown here. This is one way to solve the problem of how big or small to include here in detail. At least any spill would be good enough for that list, even if someone just dumped a barrel into the ocean or on their back lot, and it could be documented in some manner. Amounts would not be necessary here, although they could be noted on the related country page's references and footnotes.

Another issue is the ongoing cleanup and the progress being made on spills. This would simply be a list of cleanup efforts, whether ongoing or just needed, and would include the number of years and months from inception. We think about the Lakeview Gusher and can reasonably wonder what happened to all that oil. The Exxon Valdez Spill is believed to have twenty-some thousand gallons still remaining to be cleaned up. Keeping it before the public is an important job that can be coordinated with the spill lists.

Anyway, that's the general ideas. Is there any value in these?

Thanks all. - KitchM (talk) 04:43, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I believe there is value to categorizing/analyzing oil spills in various ways, but I don't believe it is feasible to actually implement any analysis of this wiki list, because it is continually accumulating historical spill data. I have been contributing to this page for a couple months, and I've been surprised at the large number of old spills that have been added to the "occurred" list during that time. You would be asking every researcher that contributes historical data to also update your country list and recompute the running total, and I think many contributors would fail to do that. For a while, this page had a graph of quantity of oil spilled versus time, but it quickly became out of date for similar reasons and was deleted.
If someone wants to see which countries have most of the spills, they can just sort the table by the "Location" column.
If someone wants to see which decades have most of the spills, they can just sort the table by the "Date" column. Johnson487682 (talk) 12:40, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I believe there is value to keeping cleanup efforts in the public eye, but I don't think it should necessarily be part of this page listing oil spills, and I think it would be a very difficult effort:
  • Many spills are never completely cleaned up. The Lakeview Gusher is still surrounded by congealed lumps of oil (see picture at the bottom of that page).
  • News media tend to forget about issues after a short while, so you will have difficulty finding any information.
I think perhaps this task would be more suited to the website of an environmental advocacy group, not an encyclopedia. Johnson487682 (talk) 12:40, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peace River references[edit]

When discussing the Peace River (Alberta) spill of April 29, 2011, several sources (such as this) have compared it to other nearby leaks:

  • 1975 Bow Valley leak (40,000 bbl)
  • 2005 Slave Lake leak (930 bbl)

Neither of these leaks are on our list, but I can't find third party verification of these other leaks. Can anyone else find a pre-Peace River source for these leaks, especially giving the exact dates of the leaks? Johnson487682 (talk) 14:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1971 sf spill[edit]

I have created a stub for the 1971 San Francisco Bay oil spill (added link from here), and all the sources i can find list the volume of oil at 800,000 gallons. Can this be right? if so, doesnt that make it a seriously major spill?Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:33, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, your sources show 840,000 gallons, which is 20,000 barrels or 2700 metric tonnes. That puts it in the bottom 1/3 of the list of oil spills. I'm sure it is very significant from the perspective of the SF Bay environment, but there are a lot of bigger spills in the list. It is certainly noteworthy that it resulted in improvements to tanker safety and triggered the founding of several environmental groups, but I'm not sure you will find it significant enough to flesh out that stub into a full article. Johnson487682 (talk) 20:30, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rayong oil spill article created[edit]

Theres so much news coverage on this I thought Id better just keep to the basic information and hope that other more experienced editors on events such as this will "chip in".....I'm new here, unsure of what can be said and how much. AlfredShonfeld (talk) 07:51, 2 August 2013

Port Bonython oil spill article created[edit]

I'm currently working on an article about the Port Bonython oil spill which occurred on August 30, 1992 at Port Bonython, South Australia, Australia. Could a more experienced editor please add this event to this list? Many thanks. Danimations (talk) 07:43, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Johnson487682 (talk) 15:19, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Empire Heritage[edit]

U-boat.net says she was carrying 16K tons of oil when she went down. Should she be on this list?

http://uboat.net/allies/merchants/3351.html

©Geni (talk) 11:32, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gulf of Mexico - prior spills ref. & tip re: archive at Newspapers.com[edit]

Hi all, I've recently started exploring Newspapers.com to aid my WP contibutions and have to say, it's an impressive archive and should be of great use to people with an interest in this topic. Here's a relevant clipping which points to some spills in the Gulf of Mexico- I'm not sure if all are in the list at present. Note that I've taken a 'clipping' from the site... this allows viewers who aren't subscribers to the site to view the article's full text (in limited resolution)- a useful mechanism for allowing other editors/site visitors to check your references easily.

Example: http://www.newspapers.com/clip/1616744/alvenus_oil_spill_disaster_of_1984/

Danimations (talk) 02:47, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ruptured pipeline spill in Asia, 2014[edit]

There's a 150,000 barrel spill from a ruptured pipeline in here, described on pages 12 and 13. Should be worth adding, but i wasn't sure about calculating the conversion of barrels to tonnes. Perhaps someone else an take a shot at it, or explain the process to me?

https://www.bsp.com.bn/main/media/files/salam/SALAM%20English_4_2014.pdf

Danimations (talk) 09:26, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your actual question, 7.33 barrels of light crude oil weigh an average of 1 metric tonne. (I used "average" in that equation, because the density of light crude oil varies.) So, if there was a spill of 150,000 barrels, divide by 7.33 and you get 20463.847 tonnes. Applying the rules of significant figures and rounding, this should be reported as 20,000 tonnes.
However, and more importantly, do not add this to the list of oil spills, because your linked source clearly states that this was an exercise testing their response to a simulated oil spill. No oil was actually spilled. Johnson487682 (talk) 21:15, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of oil spills. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool. Johnson487682 (talk) 12:48, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:04, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Gulf of Mexico oil spill[edit]

This incident still isn't included in the list. Tens of thousands of gallons of oil were spilled in the Gulf of Mexico two days ago. Jarble (talk) 04:30, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Done by someone. Johnson487682 (talk) 13:42, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on List of oil spills. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:17, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on List of oil spills. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:23, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on List of oil spills. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:32, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oil Spill in Basilicata (Italy)[edit]

What about the oil spill from a tank in Basilicata (Italy). There were about 400 metric tons of oil spilled underground from a storage tank, although the company claimed to have recovered about 200 tons. This happened between August and November 2016. Here two links to newspaper's articles:

http://www.lagazzettadelmezzogiorno.it/news/home/886254/l-eni-ammette-petrolio-sverato-sui-terreni.html

https://www.ilfattoquotidiano.it/premium/articoli/eni-ammette-sversate-400-tonnellate-di-petrolio/

The incident happened because they were using a single hull storage tank. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luca.Casamassima (talk • contribs) 08:46, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Port Erin[edit]

This seems to be out of chronological order. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.200.241 (talk) 13:58, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

this is a troll list ?[edit]

the article carefully keeps the name of certain companies out of certain disasters

the BP oil spill in the gulf is in the list, has "united states" as the place, but uses "horizon" not BP as the source

being "the largest" in the list you think they could get the company names straight away

and bye the way what was BP doing in USA/MEXICO gulf anyway? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:143:400:547B:2116:B6F3:16A7:9966 (talk) 13:49, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And 'bye' the way, what was the US doing in the Middle East anyway? 2601:CF:300:4B70:643C:CC72:3BE4:4FD6 (talk) 14:52, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Adding the names of companies was discussed and the consensus was to not add this information, for essentially the same reasons you have expressed. However, one user chose to do it anyway. When I confronted him about it and requested he revert his changes, he chose not to. You may feel free to remove the "Owner" column, if you have time for it. Johnson487682 (talk) 18:20, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brazil 2019[edit]

The Northeast Brazil oil spill is happening right now and the cause is still unknown. Erick Soares3 (talk) 00:28, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ecuadorian Oil Spills[edit]

I suggest the community to add: Pipeline bursts SOTE, the OCP and the Poliducto Shishufindi-Quito, April 7th, 2020, San Rafael, Ecuador. https://amazonwatch.org/news/2020/0409-oil-spill-along-the-coca-and-napo-rivers-affects-ecuadorian-indigenous-communities KaiRickman 04:53, 15 September 2020‎

Argentina oil spill in 2020?[edit]

I have removed this from water pollution, should it be added to the table?: The largest petroleum spill that has ever occurred in fresh water was caused by a Royal Dutch Shell tank ship in Magdalena, Argentina, on 15 January 1999, polluting the environment, drinkable water, plants and animals.[1] EMsmile (talk) 02:50, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Petroleomagdalena.com Archived 14 May 2010 at the Wayback Machine. Petroleomagdalena.com (15 January 1999). Retrieved on 29 December 2012.

Russian/Siberian Oil spill[edit]

If the numbers are true, than these ( https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%96lkatastrophe_in_Westsibirien , German Wiki) is entirely missing. I also did not see anythong of that: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%96lkatastrophe_im_Nigerdelta 2002:5DD1:5F22:0:C588:FD64:7B78:961E (talk) 10:28, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Missing Oil Spill from 2021[edit]

Off the coast of Japan, the Crimson Polaris split. We have an article for the Crimson Polaris, and I noticed it was missing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimson_Polaris Can anyone add this to the page? Thanks L27v (talk) 07:48, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_oil_spills&oldid=1208278474"