Talk:Chevron Richmond Refinery/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Article

Still under construction.Troyster87 (talk) 10:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Inaccuracy in Chevron Richmond Refinery Entry

Hello Wiki community. This is Justin with Chevron Corporation. I'd like to take a moment to bring an inaccuracy in the Chevron Richmond Refinery entry to your attention in hopes that someone from the community will take a moment to update the posting.

Under the "toxic spills" subhead. The Chevron refinery is attributed with the 1993 spill of oleum. This is incorrect. The spill was the responsibility of General Chemical of Richmond: [[1]]

Please see the following articles and news stories for further validation.

[[2]]

[[3]] (The bottom of the article confirms that General Chemical co was responsible for the spill)

"General Chemical has not had any major incidents since the 1993 oleum release that spewed a cloud of sulfuric acid over a 15-mile area, regulators said yesterday."

[[4]]


Chevron justinh (talk) 00:51, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Justin. As a Wikipedian, you may be WP:BOLD and edit the article yourself to correct any inaccuracies you may find in this or any other article, so long as your edits to Chevron-related articles conform to spirit of the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guidelines. If you would like to cite your sources in the article, Wikipedia:Citing sources will show you how to format them. Thank you also for declaring your affiliation outright and exercising caution by explaining your proposed edits on the Talk page first before carrying them out; it's very refreshing to see a new corporate editor do that without prompting (to see how often that goes terribly, terribly wrong, check out Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard — endlessly entertaining). Happy editing. --Dynaflow babble 01:49, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

capital r

This is a proper name as identified by the owner itself and by reliable sourcesHemanetwork (talk) 23:30, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

suggested image

Luciferwildcat (talk · contribs) has requested [5] that the following image be added to the article.

-

It appears there is already a gallery of images, but there is a large section of text without any images. -- The Red Pen of Doom 04:12, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I actually think the gallery can be removed altogether with one or two images kept (such as this image). Having so many images that are essentially the same is excessive, and not all of the images are clear representations of the event. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 05:27, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
I've removed the gallery. It is nice to have an image but we don't need ten of them, particularly when this is just a relatively small section in a larger article. I'm not sure if any of the other images are better than the one that was already there since they're all just ominous clouds of smoke from different angles; perhaps a clearly better one will come along soon. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 15:07, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Redundancy

I left a note on his talk page as well, but significant explosions and a significant fire occurred in both incidents, so I've restored the section headings, so I've reverted Brycehughe's removal of 'explosion' from the section heading. . I'll suggest to Jem (they are a student of mine or I would add it myself - think I'll be seeing them later today,) that they should include info explicitly pointing out that there were significant explosions and a significant fire in both instances. Kevin Gorman (talk) 10:46, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Brycehughes (talk) 15:55, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Opps...embarrassed about my use of caps in the fire/explosion wording. I should have known better but for some reason, out of the blue, it looked "funny" that way.  ;) Gandydancer (talk) 03:18, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
@Kevin Gorman: Hey, I looked into this again, and re the 2012 fire, none of the sources cited say explosions occurred, and at least two of them say no explosions occurred. Although some sources from Google do mention an explosion or explosions (e.g. this), they seem to be either immediate reporting on the event based on uncertain information or just loose semantics. In fact, looking at the Chemical Safety Board's report (p. 7), you can read that a vapor cloud "ignited", but did not explode. Even more plainly, you can see in this video animation of the incident by the Chemical Safety Board (start at around the 4:00 mark) that a vapor cloud simply ignited; it did not explode in any sort of violent or destructive manner. Anyway, point is, at the moment I'm planning to remove "explosion" from the 2012 fire subheading. Brycehughes (talk) 17:13, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi @Brycehughes: - thanks for looking in to it further; I readily admit that my understanding of the event was mostly predicated on news coverage at the time. I would agree that the Chemical Safety Board's review should trump pop media on the issue. I had been intending to look over it further, but have been waiting until the proper end of the semester to significantly alter articles touched by my students. Best, Kevin Gorman (talk) 16:39, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Explosion purged. I think the rest of the section is pretty good, represents events accurately, so props to your student. Brycehughes (talk) 18:45, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Chevron Richmond Refinery. 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}}).

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) 16:09, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Comment

Hi, Wiki folks. I'm Emma, a Richmond resident, currently studying at UCB. I am concern that this page does not any knowledge on the demographic of the surrounding communities of the Richmond Chevron Refineries(?) My primary resource is the United States Census Bureau's recorded statistics. If there is anyone who can help me establish a section, or a small paragraph for this information, it will be greatly appreciated. Thank You. BerkBear (talk • contribs) 08:44, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Citation and Bias Critique

Hello, I’d like to offer some critique of this page.
Sources are weak.
- References 3, 5, 6, 7, 32, and 35 are from Chevron’s website.
- Reference 29 is from Twitter.
This article strikes me as biased, but bias is not noted on the page. The article tends to emphasize benefits of the refinery while glossing over negative impacts.
- The entire “Toxic Spills” category was removed after Justin from Chevron commented on the Talks page.
- The article discusses clean-up and methods to improve pollution more than it discusses actual pollution. Furthermore, no pollution has been accounted for since 2008, even though recent air control tactics are discussed in a positive light.
- There are frequent positive notes (eg, “critical producer,” “enlightened personnel policy,” “city's largest employer,” but few negative notes (eg, the refinery is also the city’s largest polluter, and released over 999,328 pounds of pollutants in 2002[1]).
- Differing frames, particularly in regards to social justice and environmentalism are underrepresented. For instance, pollution from the plant disproportionately impacts people of color and low-income households, which is not discussed at all[2]).
- Details of major events are neglected. The 2014 incident is given only two brief sentences, the 1999 Explosion and Fire is encapsulated in a single sentence (even though this was a significant event in the plant’s history, affecting hundreds of workers), and the entire Trade Secrets controversy is reduced to a singular sentence.
- There are no close-up photos of the plant, photos from significant incidents, or photos including typical pollution emitted by the plant. The only photo with the plant in it is more focused on the view of green and bay from Point Richmond.
--HELI (talk) 06:32, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Not sure if the Employees section is quite accurate stating that there are 1,200 employees at the refinery. This might be outdated. I'd like to add that the Chevron Richmond website states that there are 3,800 employees working here. However, the source itself might be biased as well. [3] Jyescas (talk) 18:40, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

  1. ^ "Who is Polluting?". scorecard.goodguide.com. Retrieved 2017-01-28.
  2. ^ "Iron Triangle, Richmond, California". Wikipedia. 2016-11-08.
  3. ^ http://richmond.chevron.com/aboutchevronrichmond/default.aspx

Additional Information

Hello everyone! It seems like this article is very bias in favor of the Chevron company. I don't see any information on the environmental and health effects regarding the fumes, pollutants and hazardous materials that cause harm to the Richmond community. More information can be entered into the incidences/fires that occurred at the Chevron facility. Another thing to check in this article are the sources- some lead to broken links. Overall, I think if we add more content to this article it will help paint the picture of the real Chevron Richmond Refinery. Januaryseventeen (talk) 08:32, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Questions

Hey everyone,
Wanted to share my thoughts on this article:
I feel the article is biased towards the pros of this refinery rather than the cons, it does not take a neutral stance by highlighting the economic benefits while not mentioning the health dispariities assosciated with this refinery.
This article does not mention environmental racism in regards to health disparities that are disproportionally harming communities of color that this refinery is in close proximity to
Where can we find/add more data to add to this article?
Are there articles we can add that addresses the public's stance on the issue in a way that expresses neutrality of the author?
Evan.yoshimoto (talk) 05:00, 31 January 2017 (UTC)Evan YoshimotoEvan.yoshimoto (talk) 05:00, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I noticed this article does not present the information in a neutral matter therefore, influencing the reader in a bias manner. A lack of information in some areas and more information in favor of the refinery portrays the refinery in a positive manner by not including environment effects. The article also does not include a solid amount of sources for the information to be verifiable. Hopeslee (talk) 18:50, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Comment 2

I do agree that the article puts minimal coverage on the environmental burdens of the surrounding community which is a crucial in ensuring a neutral stance on a Wikipedia article.WalnutTreeC (talk) 04:27, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Citation and Additional Information suggestions

Hello, I noticed that under the "growth" section, the statement's "In 1938 the refinery constructed a new Hydro Plant for the production of synthetic aviation gasoline. It was the first in the Western United States to produce synthetic gasoline by combining purified hydrogen gas with an unsaturated gas by-product from gasoline cracking operations," are not cited. In addition, information on the demographics of Richmond where environmental justice in concerned may be added. Just a thought. --Ladeedani (talk) 05:20, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Another thought: For the section on employees, it would be beneficial to include more recent and objective information. Hfrankl (talk) 00:54, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I have also noticed that under the "employees" section, the statement reads, "One historian credited the companies for helping to maintain Richmond's economic viability during this difficult time, stating: "the worst effects of the stagnant economy were certainly blunted by the ability of Richmond's businesses to keep their factories running and their employees working." This statement contains an unnamed sources of information who is the "One historian?" Also, the source has a bias because it is cited from the Chevron web page. I suggest finding this information on an independent source that is not directly related to the subject. Also, web pages are known to be poor sources of information I suggest obtaining this from a book, journal, etc. I hope this helps. --Optimisticallyhopeful (talk) Yvalley (talk) 06:04, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

My thoughts: There should be a section that focuses on the surrounding communities health variances. Further detailing there should be information that covers that health concerns for the children that attend schools near by and possibly provide additional statistics of the most common health issues for children in those close communities. WalnutTreeC (talk) 04:36, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Comment 3

As i was reading through the article i noticed that it looked a bit incomplete in several sections. For ex. the "1999 explosion and fire" only has one sentence that gives brief info about what happened after the explosion, it can use more details about what kind of chemicals were releases to better inform the public and readers about the possible consequences from such "fumes" of the chemicals released into nearby residents. Another blemish would be that it needs more editing on the 2014 indecent as well, it is very brief and could use more specifics/details about what happened that day to better inform the public. Davidv408 Davidv408 (talk) 20:15, 18 February 2017 (UTC) 12:03, 18 February 2017

Comment 4

The article seems to be lacking in many major environmental risks of having a Chevron Refinery in a residential community, and how it has affected the residents of the area as a whole. The article seems to be one sided focusing only on the good of what Chevron's Refinery has brought to the area, and lacks many of the "incidents" that have occurred in the area. The other portions that are missing from this article are the viewpoints of anyone that does not work for the Chevron corporation.

ScorpioBoy 20 (talk) 22:06, 20 February 2017 (UTC)Scorpio_2ScorpioBoy 20 (talk) 22:06, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Chevron Richmond Refinery. 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) 15:20, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Chevron Richmond Refinery. 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) 15:27, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chevron_Richmond_Refinery/Archive_1&oldid=1136608468"