Talk:Oil tanker

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Oil tanker article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3: 90 days

Oil tanker has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
October 20, 2008	Good article nominee	Listed

Energy Low‑importance

	Energy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ships

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles

Transport: Maritime Low‑importance

	Transport portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Transport, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TransportWikipedia:WikiProject TransportTemplate:WikiProject TransportTransport articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Maritime task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Wrong source

"Until 1956, tankers were designed to be able to navigate the Suez Canal.[23] This size restriction became much less of a priority after the closing of the canal during the Suez Crisis of 1956.[23] Forced to move oil around the Cape of Good Hope, shipowners realized that bigger tankers were the key to more efficient transport.[23]"

This source number 23 is NOT existing. All "Marine Log"s are availible online. There is also the possibility to search them. I can´t find the right article containing such information.

Cost of transport of oil — distance?

"Second only to pipelines in terms of efficiency," This reference is awfully ambiguous. Tanker transport is at least an order of magnitude cheaper than pipe line transport. For instance, using $35 000/day for an AFRAmax carrier, that's 100 000 t carried 750 km, or 4.5 cents per barrel. An equivalent pipeline tariff would be in dollars per barrel.

187.143.80.250 (talk) 07:34, 18 April 2018 (UTC) baden k.[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

SS Belanak.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:23, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Compartmented design? To add buoyancy??

Subsection #History#Modern oil tankers para.3 (The first successful oil tanker) states tht the Zoroaster had "21 vertical watertight compartments for extra buoyancy".

This was not written by a mariner! (who would have referred to bulkheads rather than compartments). More importantly, bulkheads add weight - and thus reduce buoyancy. Our existing text lacks credibility - needs fixing.

The point of partitioning a ship, or a tank, is to reduce floodability - that is, to protect buoyancy in case of hull damage (but not to provide any "extra"!) - or to limit the free surface effect. Both are safety considerations; that makes them of particular interest in relation to the development history of oil tankers. This point about the Zoroaster's partitioned design is worth getting right.

Fixing all this is difficult without access to sources. If the source cited (Tolf, Robert W. (1976). "4: The World's First Oil Tankers". The Russian Rockefellers: The Saga of the Nobel Family and the Russian Oil Industry. Hoover Press. ISBN 0-8179-6581-5) is in fact sound, the existing phrasing can be corrected without difficulty - though material about the different safety issues should be added if at all possible. If that source is itself defective - not uncommon in books published by non-mariners! - the article can't be corrected without getting away from the source it cites. I'm unable to check Tolf, and don't have any alternative sources. Anyone else better placed? 2A04:B2C2:405:EB00:70A9:DF0D:6D77:5314 (talk) 06:59, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oil tanker versus crude tanker

Is the term oil tanker really normally used to refer to both crude oil tankers and product tankers? That's certainly quite confusing.

My impression is that in the tanker industry, companies frequently (typically?) specialize in either type, while this article does not seem to go into much length in distinguishing the two types (the term 'product tanker' is used only once in the article text outside of the lead section). --Njardarlogar (talk) 06:26, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]