Talk:Exxon Valdez

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Maybe there are, and they're hidden. NORAD, for example.  Area 51. RealGrouchy 17:07, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Missing ship

message: I read somewhere that the Valdez was renamed upon its reactivation. Can anyone confirm? SteelyDave 03:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Renaming?

message: ...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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Thanks -- I learned something today! Offshore1 15:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Prohibited by law from entering PWS...

message: 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)
thread_title: Made improvements

message: 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)
thread_title: Hazelwood Information

message: I find maritime history very interesting; so when I heard about the Exxon Valdez oil spill, I was instantly intrigued. I began to research it a little and came across a great article: Nichols, Alan. (1989). Water pollution control federation. Water Environment Federation, 61(7), 1174-1185. In this article, I found out an oil tanker call the Exxon Valdez grounded and spilt about 11-33 million gallons of oil. This was the largest oil spill until the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, some 21 years later. This oil spill was especially disastrous due to the large amount of sea life present in the area. The Prince William Sound is a habitat for salmon, sea otters, seals and seabirds and is a very remote location, accessible only by helicopter, plane, and boat. This hardship made government and industry response efforts very difficult and expensive. In the end, it's estimated that about 11,000 square miles and 1300 miles of shoreline were covered in oil, creating about five billion dollars worth of damages.  I won't ruin the article anymore if you're interested in it, but there was quite a bit of interesting information in it. I highly recommend checking it out and learning a bit of information on a huge disaster in American history. Bahnzaijr (talk) 04:08, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further Reading 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Sold For Scrap 

message: 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)
replies: text: Very well, then.  The matter has been settled and reported in the article.  NorthCoastReader (talk) 00:45, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should This Article Continue? 

message: "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)
thread_title: Remaining oil

message: 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)
thread_title:  Worth keeping updated until the end  

message: 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)
thread_title:  External links modified 

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