Talk:Montara oil spill

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Is it worth mentioning the type of oil involved - if anyone has access to it? I have heard it referred to as "waxy" and assume that it isn't heavy crude.BartBart (talk) 14:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it is a mix of crude oil, natural gas and condensate. - Shiftchange (talk) 04:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


Fascinating topic - thinking of material to add. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Some context would be good. How long has West Atlas mobile oil rig been there, were there any concerns raised before it started drilling (i.e. preceding controversy), what is the nature of the seascape nearby (reefs? continental shelf? etc.)
  • Also, any more elaboration on what species are in danger - any endangered species etc. The more the better.
  • Frans Leburaya is governor of where? Probably worth a stub himself...
  • Any discussion of sanctions or fines.
  • I am not a fan of see also sections at the bottom, especially if they can be worked into the text.
  • If you can, more fully formatting references with authors and website/publisher details'd be good.

These are just some initial thoughts. I am aware that many possibly can't be answered, but I just thought they'd be good to explore. Definitely worth buffing up to GA status sometime...Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughts and edits Casliber. Will follow-up on some of these. Cheers. Aareo (talk) 12:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Plug and cap[edit]

These terms have been used extensively by the media to describe efforts to stop the leak and so are appropriate to use. Also if editors could provide a summary for each and every edit that would be best. - Shiftchange (talk) 21:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Shiftchange, thanks for your input. However, there were inline citations to PTTEP press release source material that state that the well is not "plugged" or "capped". Yes, this contradicts the journalistic reports, which are at odds with what PTTEP are actually saying in their "incident information" on their website. In fact, the PTTEP incident report for 4/11/09 [1] states:
Once aboard, the specialist team will conduct a damage assessment of the well head prior to plugging the well. Assessments and safety preperations will determine how the next phase to plug the well will be carried out."
Which is also a reiteration of what was said in the PTTEP incident reports of 3/11/09 [2].
It's clear from these reports that the well is not plugged, and that the journalistic articles that say that the well is plugged are actually misrepresenting the facts - hence my reedits at odds with apparent misinformation in media reports. The PTTEP articles refer to stopping the leak and "well kill". Nowhere is there any mention of the well being "capped" in PTTEP reports.
Do we go with the incorrect media articles, or with the facts as they stand? Sure, I built-up this article using media material, but as an encylopedic type service we need to tighten-up the facts by being consistent with the source material and technical facts. In otherwords, we shouldn't be stooping to journalistic inaccuracies. I would expect that most people agree with that.
So I'm going to reedit the article back to what is consistent with the source material from PTTEP (assuming everyone is onboard with PTTEP source material over journalistic inaccuracies), including the well not being "plugged" and also not being "capped". Anyway, now it's all explained. Cheers.Aareo (talk) 07:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Is this all Thaksin Shinawat's fault?[edit]

Is the reason for this disaster the result of Thaksin Shinawat's interference in the thai state owned oil company? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Authority vs media[edit]

One of the problems with information on this spill is that journalists are not always reliable sources of information - for example, please refer to prior discussion "plug and cap". It must go without saying that the original authoritive quote from the Australian Maritime Safety Authority is the vital original source material here on the seriousness of the event [3], especially over a quote from non-authoritive journalist without reference to the authoritive source [4]. It's probably right to say it's the "worst" oil spill, rather than "one of the worst" but we can have an authoritive source for that? I'm not anti-journalist, but we need to keep to authoritive sources as much as possible, especially given the unreliability of media reports with this event. Aareo (talk) 10:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I second that advice, we need better sources for information than merely mass/mainstream media sources. Nick carson (talk) 11:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Water Depth and Depth of Hole[edit]

I would like to insert, after ...21 August 2009.: The depth of water was approximately 250 ft (76 m) and depth of hole was approximately 1.6 mi (3 km) below the seabed.: and before Sixty-nine... and refer to No. [62] but if I "name" that reference where it occurs, we seem to re-number the references (in that section, in the preview). Can anyone direct me to help on this re-using a pre-existing Reference that is not named? Considering "Plug and cap" and "Authority vs. media" above, may be another reference is better, the nytimes was only the first one I found to provide the information. Darrylh08 (talk) 21:30, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

References are numbered dynamically acoording to their first appearance. Two identical references have to be named. See Help:Footnotes#Multiple references to the same footnote. Done  Andreas  (T) 23:42, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Reference for future article expansion[edit]

Parking this here for the benefit of other editors: --Danimations (talk) 03:53, 5 December 2016 (UTC)