Talk:2009 southeast Queensland oil spill

In The News

I have put a brief request for the event to be included in the "In the news" section of the main page, we have plenty of info and sources, we just need to organise it all. Any help with pursuing it's inclusion in ITN would be much appreciated. Nick carson (talk) 06:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

This event should be up there. I'll see what I can do later tomorrow to help out. Feel free to copy any of the information from the Hamish article since I'm going to reword it and summarize it a bit more since there is an article on it. Cyclonebiskit 06:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure thing, thanks heaps for that. As usual, I was amazed that an article didn't exist for this. I made a basic map and working on a better one. I've gone through and done a basic copyedit and arranged the info we have into some basic sections so we can make sense of it all. Nick carson (talk) 07:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

BBC has a map of the oil spill, you might be able to use it to update the current map. [1] Cyclonebiskit 19:35, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

We've got differing accounts of the affected area from various sources, I'll look into it and find out where exactally the affected areas are and adjust the map accordingly. Nick carson (talk) 06:45, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Explosion

"Press reports stated that if the ammonium nitrate were to mix with the heavy fuel, the mixture could ignite and cause a large explosion."

Where exactly did the press report this? It may have been reported that when you mix the two you CAN make an explosion.

In any case, it doesn't really matter if someone said it because a small amount of fuel + ammonium nitrate in a large ocean does not equal an explosion since the ammonium nitrate dissolves in WATER. Constan69 (talk) 22:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Exactally, and you need an ignition source too. Sensationalistic, dramatised mainstream commercial media "news". Nick carson (talk) 06:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

So hard to get good help nowadays

Does this sentence make sense to anybody else? "High tides were helping the cleanup effort as they carried some of the fuel oil off shorelines and dispersed it in the sea." If you're a drudge whose task is to clean a beach, I guess that helps you personally, but if you're at all sensitive to the damage these chemicals and oils could do to sensitive marine life, I should think one would prefer washing conveniently onto a beach for pickup over "dispersal" into the sea. Abrazame (talk) 16:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Not really, most of the persons I know in environmental remediation wish they could just let the materials dilute in large bodies of water. "Dilution is the solution to pollution." to quote of my instructor in Hazardous Materials and Pollution Response. The concentrations immediately offshore (with 15m of the tide line) might be high enough to have an impact, but the ocean is huge and water a wonderfully polar solvent. Scienda (talk) 22:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Needless to say, the best solution to such a problem is to just not transport toxic substances full stop. We can use organic substances for all our needs, and anything particular like substances for medical use, are required in far smaller amounts that can be easily transported without endangering life. Such an easy solution, similar argument basis with guns; just get rid of them, simple. Same argument for the shipping company responsible for the transport of the oil; get those responsible on the beaches cleaning it up themselves. Nick carson (talk) 04:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Impartiality of the article needs to be disputed

I'm concerned that some "editorial statements" in this article are either unfounded, untrue or do not cite appropriate sources.

eg; "unsecured cargo" there is no evidence that the deck cargo was unsecured, in fact the opposite as the remaining shipping containers have damaged twist lock pockets if you look at the photos. Later in the article "a wave broke the restraints for the cargo and sent 31 containers of ammonium nitrate overboard" - were they unsecured or restrained?

eg; "fuel" infers a more refined substance than the bunker oil used in the great majority of ocean going vessels. Diesel fuel would not have caused the damage that the heavier bunker oil does.

eg; " In an interview of the crew of the ships, the crew stated that the captain was to blame for the incident." citation and references to the names of the crew members who blamed the captain.

eg; "The captain decided to stay on course, directly through the storm" - the Queensland Govt. Maritime Safety Bureau's website at http://www.msq.qld.gov.au/Home/About_us/Msq_headlines/Questions_answers_pacific_adventurer has a different story as to why ships are always advised to put to sea in large storms/cyclones.

eg; "Press reports stated that if the ammonium nitrate were to mix with the heavy fuel, the mixture could ignite and cause a large explosion." - absolute drivel and a media beat up.

eg; "If the chemical did not react with the fuel but still leaked out, marine life could be threatened by large blooms of algae." - speculation and needs the citation from the scientist who made that statement.

eg; "The southern tip of Bribie Island to Point Arkwright" - not true.

eg: "The shipping company and the ship's master are expected to be fined A$2 million ($1.3 million USD)[14] and $500,000 respectively. In addition the Queensland Premier Anna Bligh explained: "If there is any grounds for prosecution of this ship and its owners we will not hesitate to take that action." and "We will also be pursuing them for compensation as this is going to be a very big clean-up cost and I want those ship owners to be paying for it."[2] Following the environmental disaster, the company could be fined an additional A$248.6 million ($163.5 million USD).[17] Once the ship was at port, the captain was forced to surrender his passport to Australian officials and he was to remain in Brisbane for at least two weeks to help with the investigation.[18]" - this totally pre empts the legal system and should be deleted until such time as any action (if any) is taken against the captain and the shipping company. Swires (the owners) have already said they will pay for the cleanup via their insurers in a press release. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.177.138.204 (talk) 20:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Impartial would be as my comment above explains; suggesting that those responsible pay the costs of, and offer their own personal labour to the clean up efforts, and the shipping of toxic substances ceases. Such comments are not included in the article because they are impartial. The inclusions you (whoever you are) have alluded to will ultimately be cited/referenced/sourced at some stage as the article is under construction and it is a current event. Nick carson (talk) 12:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

So the fact that Swires has already committed to pay the costs is just ignored? Swires is an overseas company and the crew would be required to have 457 Visas for working on shore - as if the Feds are going to issue those in less than a month. Bunker Oil and Ammonium Nitrate are NOT toxic, you can run your hands through them and they will not poisen you. Both of them are environmental hazards, as is practically all naturally and made man substances in the wrong place. The Government posturing/media machine of the cleanup workers wearing white coveralls and wearing respirator masks on day one, has now changed to just white coveralls. If you want to do some further research go and ask why the Oil Industry's Oil Spill Response Plan was refused (hence my anonymity) - with the offer of proper floating absorbant booms, air spray oil coagulants, scoop boats, etc. There was no need for the Disaster Declaration (other than political) which has caused no end of economic hardship for the tourism operators in areas not even effected by the spill.