Talk:Exxon Valdez

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)

Current Status
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)

KAM, do you have a source of info you can cite? I was just reading Exxon Valdez and Exxon Valdez oil spill and noticed an inconsistency between them regarding the ship's current status:

Exxon Valdez:
 * In 2002, the ship was removed from service because it was too expensive to operate. It is currently in East Asia.

Exxon Valdez oil spill:
 * It was still sailing as of August 2007.

--Nmagedman (talk) 08:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

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)

Page is inconsistent about the volume of the spill. Working on the basis that a barrel is 159 ltr "spilling millions of barrels" = few times 159e6 ltr "The size of the spill is estimated to have been 40,900 to 120,000 m3" = 41e6 - 120e6 ltr "or 257,000 to 750,000 barrels" = 41-120e6 ltr

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"

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)

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)

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)

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)


 * "In settlement of civil charges, Exxon would pay the State of Alaska and the United States $900 million over a 10-year period. The money would be used for restoration and administered by six government trustees; three federal, three state. In settlement of criminal charges, Exxon would pay a fine of $250 million. Two restitution funds of $50 million each were established, one under state control and one under federal authority. Against strong opposition from many Alaskans, $125 million of the balance was forgiven, owing to Exxon's cooperation during the cleanup, and upgraded safety procedures to prevent a reoccurrence. The remaining $50 million was divided between the Victims of Crime Act account ($13 million) and the North American Wetlands Conservation Fund ($12 million). On September 16, 1994, a jury in federal court returned a $5 billion punitive damages verdict against Exxon. The company appealed several times, and in November 2001, the verdict was overturned by a panel of the Ninth Circuit Court." http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h2405.html] Hope that helps. NinjaKid (talk) 11:00, 29 July 2008 HI

Sold For Scrap
http://today.seattletimes.com/2012/03/exxon-valdez-sold-for-scrap/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.3.65.68 (talk) 22:05, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Should This Article Continue?
Although, as indicated by the above post, the ship has been sold for scrap, it would seem that the saga continues. As of May 10, 2012, the ship has been denied entry into India where it was to be broken up for scrap and I'm wondering if the article should be expanded to account for the additional information. Does it detract from the value of the article (which seems a might unfinished as currently presented) to include more detail on the history of the ship? How much detail is too much detail for an encyclopedic article? These are genuine questions... NorthCoastReader (talk) 01:35, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Very well, then. The matter has been settled and reported in the article.  NorthCoastReader (talk) 00:45, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Remaining oil
"As of 2010 there are an estimated 23,000 US gallons (87 m3) of Valdez crude oil still in Alaska's sand and soil." This doesn't belong in the litigation section, probably it belongs in the Spill article. Rich Farmbrough, 21:01, 9 January 2013 (UTC).

As of 2010 there are an estimated 23000 USgal of Valdez crude oil still in Alaska's sand and soil.

removed form this article. Rich Farmbrough, 21:21, 9 January 2013 (UTC).

Worth keeping updated until the end
Until the ship's fate is sealed I believe the information should be updated. Although its location is unlikely to change, finally having been beached, I would still like it updated until the dismantling is documented and listed here. Ongoing updates should not be stopped until then. Ebdonaldson (talk) 04:56, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

"Waterworld Usage"
Hello! I agree with KAM. There should be a reference to how it was used as the Smokers' base in the movie, "Waterworld". I thought that there used to be such a reference here. So, where did it go? Why was it removed if it used to exist? Other ships, that appear in movies, get a reference in their respective articles. So why not this ship? LeoStarDragon1 (talk) 08:39, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree. It's trivia, and trivia isn't encouraged in Wikipedia, but a brief mention is warranted. --Ef80 (talk) 23:34, 28 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Popular culture headings are found in many Wikipedia articles, and the Valdez spill was a high-profile event in our culture, making the Exxon Valdez a cultural symbol for Corporate disregard of Environmental issues, hence the reference in Waterworld, which seems to me a bit more relevant than simple trivia. I think it should be included.
 * Ernest Ruger (talk) 23:50, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Exxon Valdez. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131214153752/http://www.adn.com/evos/stories/EV331.html to http://www.adn.com/evos/stories/EV331.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100624234133/http://www.onthemedia.org/transcripts/2010/06/18/01 to http://www.onthemedia.org/transcripts/2010/06/18/01
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090527124140/http://www.coltoncompany.com/newsandcomment/headlines/headlines2005q1.htm to http://www.coltoncompany.com/newsandcomment/headlines/headlines2005q1.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100710005708/http://incidentnews.gov/incident/6683 to http://www.incidentnews.gov/incident/6683

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:29, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Pronunciation
How come it is often pronounced 'valdeez' instead of the spanish way? KhlavKhalash (talk) 15:50, 22 January 2023 (UTC)