Talk:Oil spill

message: "Oil from the Exxon Valdez and Gulf War oil spills" persisted. "By contrast", "the Braer spill off the Shetland Islands and the Sea Empress spill off Milford Haven left almost no long-term environmental damage", why the difference? Jackzhp 12:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: reason

message: I removed the following line from the article, because I couldn't find any sources for it.  Any ideas?
"A tanker spill off shore from Aberdeen, Washington released 100,000 gallons of oil into the harbor. "    
Fredwerner (talk) 05:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Aberdeen?

message: Under environmental effects: "Oil coats the front of Sea otters, seals, reducing their furs natural insulation abilities"  —Preceding unsigned comment added by PrinssiFO (talk • contribs) 22:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism? 

message: This article should be expanded to include Oil Spills that are NOT in the environment. E.G. Oil Spills that pose safety hazards in maintenance or construction areas. There is currently no article for those.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.164.80.42 (talk) 10:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oil Spills in other areas 

message: "Oil is also released into the environment from natural geologic seeps on the sea floor. [1] Most human-made oil pollution comes from land-based activity, but public attention and regulation has tended to focus most sharply on seagoing oil tankers"
63%, in the United States alone, comes from natural, geological expulsions, and less than 1% from drilling platforms, etc. Yet, this isn't even given more than a passing, obscure reference in the article....why?  --Dashel101 (talk) 22:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Very interesting. Under the headline "Oil Spill" ? I expected to find a discussion of the euphemism that this term is, not a justification of businesses polluting the ocean. It reflects the business friendly US culture: what in German is called Ölpest and in french marée noire, "black tide", in English is a harmless "spill", like what we all regularly cause in the kitchen. Whereas the 9/11 terror attacks were quickly dramatized as "war on america", harm caused by business is presented in very harmless terms. It is particular to the US culture to do this. E.g. the "Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill" is called the "Ölkatastrophe im Golf von Mexiko" in the German WP. I'd love to see the cultural differences in terminology addressed in the article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.199.119 (talk) 02:59, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Oil Spill" ? 

message: In the Methods of cleaning - equipment section there is a product mentioned, Nokomis 3
After looking up the corresponding article, which is poorly written and has a smell of advertisment to me, and seeing the manufacturers website, it turns out Nokomis is a simple dispersant, which are covered in the "methods" part above.
I vote for deletion of the Nokomis 3 - reference.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.148.120.37 (talk) 13:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Working with author of that article -- one (actually two) of the five dispersants BP rejected, so worth salvaging. Paulscrawl (talk) 14:26, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nokomis 3 

message: Isn't it a little premature to put the deepwater horizon incident in the list of largest oil spills of all time?--345Kai (talk) 00:50, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Notice: I have added the "nowiki" templates to the above comment to avoid having the citations appear under new and unrelated comments at the bottom of this talk page. Another option is , but this only confuses if a new comment with citations is added. Due to the high age of the above comment I decided to use nowiki. Should someone disagree, feel free to change (--> WP:TPO). RN1970 (talk) 10:01, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  deepwater horizon? 

message: The current version of this article lists the Exxon Valdez spill at 350,000 tonnes of crude. However, the reference listed for the Exxon Valdez spill, says 240,500 barrels.  At 7.33 barrels per tonne, this is 32,810 tonnes. The reference in the mail Exxon Valdez oil spill article says (http://www.evostc.state.ak.us/facts/qanda.cfm) says 38,800 metric tonnes.  "11 million gallons or 257,000 barrels or 38,800 metric tonnes." List of oil spills, has it at 37,000 tonnes. So, there seems to be a conversion issue in the current version of this article.  Thus, this spill is NOT in the spills over 100,000 tonnes. I'm removing it from the list.  AppleMacD (talk) 21:36, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reviewing the size of the spills 

message: I know it is sourced to the NY Times, but it seems like something has to be wrong with this edit  that increased the Gulf War spill by two orders of magnitude.  Dragons flight (talk) 19:43, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  100 million tons 

message: In a fortnight it reached 290k tons, it should top this list in a month. Yet it isn't mentioned. Is this because it's ongoing? 99.236.221.124 (talk) 04:29, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deepwater Horizon - Largest oil spills 

message: Can whoever posted the comment about PCBs please explain to me how an aromatic compound living several km deep in the earth's crust managed to get itself poly-chlorinated? PCBs were manufactured in chemical plants. If they previously existed naturally in crude oil, then this is the first I have heard about it. However, I am leaving the comment for now with a citation request in the possible event that I am wrong. If I am right, then please remove this comment, as this seems like the kind of mislead hype that damages the credibility of wikipedia. Wulfgang (talk) 14:19, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Although its probably not refering to crude oil but that PCBs are an 'oil', I agree that its way outside of the common meaning of 'oil spill' and I removed.Lateg (talk) 11:22, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  PCBs in crude oil 

message: * http://www.iosc.org/
--222.64.219.195 (talk) 01:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Info about scientific oil spill management..... 

message: * http://scholar.google.com.sg/scholar?as_q=oil+tsunami&num=10&btnG=Search+Scholar&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_occt=title&as_sauthors=&as_publication=&as_ylo=&as_yhi=&as_sdt=1.&as_sdtp=on&as_sdts=5&hl=en
--222.64.219.195 (talk) 01:19, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The relationship with [[tsunami]] 

message: I think it would be very helpful to have a column in the table of largest spills to identify whether the source was a marine well, land well/field, or tanker.  In the onging debate about whether to drill offshore or import oil via tankers, we need to understand which is better. Wmjohn6217 (talk) 20:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table needs column for source of spill & Gallons or Barrels 

message: John Hofmeister's been going on about this massive but, until now, unknown, spill that Saudi Aramco had in 1993-1994. I can find nothing about it anywhere. With him claiming that it was 150% the size of the Gulf War spill, it seems like a hard thing to have kept quiet for 17 years. Is this an example of an amazing press containment atop the oil containment? Hofmeister's story is here. Czrisher (talk) 13:27, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: i believe that article is a reference to the cleanup of the gulf war spills...--emerson7 16:50, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Saudi Aramco Spill and Hofmeister/Pozzi 

message: Found some vandalism while visiting the page. Did an Undo to put the article back as it was.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmaples (talk • contribs) 02:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: Its article puts it at 250,000 barrels, which certainly merits placement on the list.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orionriver (talk • contribs) 07:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you are confusing barrels and tons.  The list on this page is for spills larger than 100,000 tons, which would be 733,000 barrels.  If the Exxon-Valdez spill is 250,000 barrels, then it is smaller than the 100,000 ton (733,000 barrel) cutoff for the list. Calathan (talk) 20:01, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why isn't Exxon-Valdez here? 

message: The 'largest spills' table/section seems to be somewhat western-centric--my guess would be that the data is limited to single-events (not multiple smaller events in a single area), and is focused on events that were 'noticed' by the western world for whatever reason (that includes Iraq war). For example, I keep hearing that the Niger Delta is horribly hit and nobody hears about it. I think those are multiple events over extended time--no less devastating, but each event is smaller, or maybe just nobody measured the spill?
"According to Nigerian federal government figures, there were more than 7,000 spills between 1970 and 2000, and there are 2,000 official major spillages sites, many going back decades, with thousands of smaller ones still waiting to be cleared up. More than 1,000 spill cases have been filed against Shell alone."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/may/30/oil-spills-nigeria-niger-delta-shell''
Maybe the poster of the data could add some text for context as to the source, types of data, limitations, etc?
Thanks.
69.86.235.245 (talk) 01:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have added some data about spills in the Niger Delta in the prose just above the table of largest spills. Larataguera (talk) 03:31, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:   missing data for largest spills?  

message: It would be very useful to have total amount spilled tabulated. Two data actually:
A. Does anyone know how to use wiki code to create a "Row" in the table of "spills over 100,000 tons" that would total all the preceding rows? It would total the upper and lower bounds so this total would itself consist of two numbers; upper and lower.
B. It would also be very helpful to have the current-best-estimate total for ALL spills of oil (in the broad definition of the term) both "small" (under 100,000 tons) and those above.
(By the way, if I calculated correctly, every 1 million tons spilled (the size of some of the largest ones; the total spilled is far above 1 million) is equivalent to one ppt (part per trillion) of the entire planet's ocean volume. With some petrocheicals (e.g. benzine) being cited as having toxicity in the ppb's range, it's entirely possible that the threshold for "some harmful effects from long-term exposure" swimming in it for months or years could end up being measurable in parts per trillion. This aside is not the only reason totals are helpful, but does illustrate one of the many reasons a WP would be helpful to contain totals A. and B.) Harel (talk) 22:56, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Data for '''Total''' amount from all spills? all large spills? 

message: I haven't been able to find anything on this particular spill anywhere in Wikipedia.  Reports are that the spill was 100 - 120 kilotons of oil.  Here's a couple of references to get started:
http://www1.american.edu/ted/komi.htm
http://archive.greenpeace.org/majordomo/index-oldgopher/9505/msg00009.html
This reference says the 'official estimate' was 60,000 tons:
http://www.bellona.org/articles/articles_2007/Oil_spill_in_Komi
This reference cites (unnamed) environmental groups at 60-200 tons (and the company's official position of 14,000 tons):
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=jRgVAAAAIBAJ&sjid=vQcEAAAAIBAJ&pg=6808,213696&dq=komi+oil&hl=en
Biccat (talk) 01:38, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Komi / Usinsk oil disaster 

message: That was terrestrial, what could it have spilled into? 99.236.221.124 (talk) 00:58, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lakeview 

message: We are in dire need of better sources for the given number of 9 million gallons. The three current sources are a youtube video and about.com, both of which aren't incredibly reliable, and a book which apparently is reliable but ideally would be supplemented by an online reliable verifiable source. Travelbird (talk) 15:37, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lakeview Gusher numbers 

message: User 91.55.96.174 just removed two columns, the ones showing gallons and barrels, from the table of oil spills.  The Table now shows only tons.  All the news I have heard lately measures spills in gallons or barrels, not tons.  I think the change should be reverted. HowardMorland (talk) 04:29, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's ugly and makes no sense, but if you don't see it I guess it might just be the table for you. Have fun!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.55.96.174 (talk) 04:42, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Oil Spill Table 

message: Someone needs to separate the wheat from the chaff in the second part here, and make what is viable more encyclopedic. Daniel1212 (talk) 15:31, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Vacuum and centrifuge

message: This article contains one very limited paragraph on Environmental Damage from Oil Spills.  This seems hopelessly inadequate to the subject, even in an encyclopedia.  This entire construct ought to be expanded and perhaps listed by each aspect of the environment: i.e. hydrology, aquatic mammals, humans, etc.  Surely there must be a body of research that has addressed this and can be cited more authoritatively?
Justinoly22 (talk) 14:18, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Environmental Damage 

message: BBC says 4.9 million barrels..of which 800,000 were captured, it has been said. Haven't checked all the other references in the last couple of weeks so rather than adding I'll leave it to others whether to add the BBC link http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-10848147 It does show that even the lower figure 4.1 is above the mid-point of the "2 to 6 million" range for the 1990s Persian Gulf spill..so is larger than that one for certain. (aside: U.S. media still report that one as "the largest" when it's in third place, below Deepwater Horizon, which in turn is below Lakeview, someone write/email your media to correct them next time they say it)Harel (talk) 04:51, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  size of spill 

message: Per Wikipedia policy, "Most human-made oil pollution comes from land-based activity" has been removed until a citation can be added. This is a fascinating fact (assuming it's accurate), but such a specific and not widely known fact requires a reference to be included. I'd really like to see where it's from. Please add it back in once a source can be found and cited.
--Cfwschmidt (talk) 02:19, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation needed. "Most human-made oil pollution..." 

message: Vessels such as supertankers can be used to suck up oil; see http://inhabitat.com/gulf-spill-solution-could-be-supertankers-bp-wont-listen/  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.182.152.229 (talk) 15:41, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Supertankers

message: That is not a squid..... It is a pile of kelp. Not entirely sure how to edit that caption though. Any help??Wilbiddle42 (talk) 21:53, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image caption for first image on the page 

message: I'm not sure why the term "ton" at the head of the table of largest oil spills still has a clarification tag.  Although the term can refer to different measurements, note "a" clearly defines the volume of oil that is considered a "ton" in this instance.  I'd like to remove the tag, but since this topic involved several editors a while back, I thought it better to give others a chance to reply first.  P Aculeius (talk) 13:40, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove clarification tag for term, "ton" 

message: From a text in Kijk magazine (13/2011), I seem to understand that unrefined oil can be (easily) degraded by microorganisms, where refined oil can not be broken down by microorganisms. So, it seems that an oil spill with the first type of oil is ecologically (relatively) harmless, while the second one creates huge environmental damage. Look into it and mention it in the article.
91.182.240.163 (talk) 15:36, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Unrefined vs refined oil spill

message: Hi all, I noticed there is no mention that I can see regarding the results of clean up efforts. That is a big oversight. For instance, During the Deepwater media coverage, it was widely reported that on the shores where the Exxon Valdez spilled, oil is still found under the rocks. Are there any successful clean ups? This type of information would be good to add to this article, no?  petrarchan47tc 19:34, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Results" section needed? 

message: The line in the largest oil spills section that says "Oil spills at sea are generally much more than damaging than those on water ," doesn't make sense. Did the writer intend to say "than those on land" or "than those on fresh water"? Without a citation it's hard to know. Linktex (talk) 15:46, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spills at sea vs. land vs. water? 

message: Perhaps this can be mentioned in the article:
http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/05/22/robot-fish-pollution-idINDEE84L03320120522
KVDP (talk) 14:28, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Robotic fish

message: Appearantly, Bacillus subtilis is used for this, see http://www.pnas.org/content/106/43/18109.short
Mention in article
80.200.230.223 (talk) 12:05, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Microbes to clean up oil spills

message: This section was added in this diff. I'm sure most of this can be used, but will probably need a bit of work first. petrarchan47tc 20:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition by IP 

message: Since this is the second or third time someone has just assumed that the amount of oil burned in the Kuwaiti Oil Fires was a typo, I'm just placing this memorandum about it.  The sources and estimates found in various sources are provided in one of the sections above, and there's a note attached to the table in the article as well.  It's not a typo.  The amount of oil lost in the Kuwaiti Oil Fires is about two orders of magnitude greater than that lost in any other oil spill in recorded history.  The reason why the Lakeview gusher isn't on a similar scale is because it was just one well... the Kuwaiti Oil Fires involved over seven hundred wells gushing uncontrolled for several weeks, and some for several months.  The figures cited could still use more corroboration, but there's nothing the least bit surprising about the oil fires accounting for so much more oil spilled.  P Aculeius (talk) 02:43, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Size of Kuwaiti Oil Fires (memorandum) 

message: I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of :Oil spill's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "Panetta":
From Marine pollution: Panetta, LE (Chair) (2003) America's living oceans: charting a course for sea change [Electronic Version, CD] Pew Oceans Commission.
From Environmental impact of shipping: Panetta, L. E. (Chair) (2003). "America's living oceans: charting a course for sea change." Electronic Version, CD. Pew Oceans Commission.
From Oil tanker: Panetta, L. E. (Chair) (2003). America's living oceans: charting a course for sea change [Electronic Version, CD] Pew Oceans Commission.
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 18:21, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:Oil spill]] 

message: Perhaps this can be mentioned ?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.242.236.184 (talk) 08:34, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Oil spill cleanup device

message: I've asked the editor who keeps tagging the list of largest oil spills as "original research" to bring the argument to the talk page, but so far all there have been are comments in the edit summaries, including a warning not to remove the tag.  From my perspective, the repetitive tagging constitutes a means of advocating a particular point of view without attempting to obtain consensus from interested editors.  I suspect this may be because previous discussions of the same issue failed to achieve consensus, and I also think that the other editor involved may be the same one who previously raised the issue here, but I cannot tell, because that editor did most of his editing from IP addresses.
The issue under dispute is whether the Kuwaiti Oil Fires ought to be included under the heading of "oil spills".  This editor first raised that question five years ago, noting that they seemed to fall within the definition of "oil spill" set forth in the lead paragraph of the article: "the release of a liquid petroleum hydrocarbon into the environment".  That being the case, they would almost certainly be important to include on the basis of their massive and unprecedented scale.  It was also difficult to separate them as a distinct occurrence from the pooling of oil on the ground from the same wells that were sabotaged by the retreating Iraqi army in 1991, since that portion of the transaction was indisputably within the scope of the article.  As the two events are closely linked and arose out of the same transaction, it seemed reasonable to include both, if both could fit within the scope of the article.
This addition was relatively uncontroversial at the time, and accepted as within the article's scope for the next four years.  But in June, 2014, a discussion of the same point occurring on the talk page of the article about the Kuwaiti Oil Fires was carried over here by another editor.  After going back and forth for a month, the argument was dropped, and the other editor added a "dubious" tag requesting further discussion.  Nobody else accepted the invitation to discuss it.  Several months later, the same argument was revived, although there was no change in circumstances or basis.  After that discussion finally died down without a consensus being reached, an editor is now adding tags claiming that the disputed inclusion of the Kuwaiti Oil Fires is "original research," and claiming that what makes it "original research" is that the cited sources don't refer to it as an oil spill.
Since the other editor has declined repeated requests to discuss the issue on the article's talk page, I'm initiating a discussion here.  My position is that this is not a question of original research, but the scope of the article as defined in the lead paragraph.  If an oil spill is defined as "the release of a liquid petroleum hydrocarbon into the environment," then it is of no consequence whether the oil pools on the ground or in the water, or whether any of it is burned, on land, in the water, or in the air.  It plainly fits within the scope of the article, and including it on that basis cannot be characterized as "original research" whether or not the cited sources state that it is or is not a type of oil spill.
It has been argued repeatedly that this would require other oil fires to be included on the list of oil spills, which they are not.  But given that no other oil fire approaches the scale of the other spills included on this or the other table, it is unlikely that they would be included anyway.  The Kuwaiti Oil Fires are sui generis, as there has never been a comparable event before or since, and it is to be hoped that such an event is never repeated.  But given the magnitude of the release of oil, which far exceeds any other spill, it seems to me that excluding them from the article when they plainly fall within its scope would not only be arbitrary, but unhelpful to those researching the topic of oil spills, as the event is clearly relevant and important.
Once again, I invite the other editor to discuss this issue here on the article's talk page, instead of simply conducting a back-and-forth argument through edit summaries.  P Aculeius (talk) 18:44, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Repeated tagging as "original research" 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Oil spill. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130219034012/http://earthshots.usgs.gov/Iraq/Iraqtext to http://earthshots.usgs.gov/Iraq/Iraqtext
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080607072353/http://www.itopf.com:80/stats.html to http://www.itopf.com/stats.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071019035945/http://www.cedre.fr/uk/spill/atlantic/atlantic.htm to http://www.cedre.fr/uk/spill/atlantic/atlantic.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090623220136/http://www.maritime-connector.com:80/ContentDetails/1479/gcgid/193/lang/English/Tanker-Incidents.wshtml to http://www.maritime-connector.com/ContentDetails/1479/gcgid/193/lang/English/Tanker-Incidents.wshtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141202213845/http://www.itopf.com/information-services/data-and-statistics/case-histories/index.html to http://www.itopf.com/information-services/data-and-statistics/case-histories/index.html#amoco-cadiz
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111110174806/http://ip.com/pq-oil_spill_cleanup.html to http://ip.com/pq-oil_spill_cleanup.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:31, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Oil spill. 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/20100613042140/http://www.commondreams.org:80/views04/0322-04.htm to http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0322-04.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:30, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Oil spill. 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/20140621141947/http://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/about-bp/energy-economics/statistical-review-of-world-energy/using-the-review/Conversionfactors.html to http://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/about-bp/energy-economics/statistical-review-of-world-energy/using-the-review/Conversionfactors.html
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) 23:04, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: There doesn't seem to be any page on solidifiers. If made, add this:
polyurethane/silane sponge
KVDP (talk) 16:05, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Solidifiers

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Oil spill. 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/20100804005524/http://incidentnews.gov/incident/6786 to http://www.incidentnews.gov/incident/6786
*Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/66rv6ZDxm?url=http://www.incidentnews.gov/incident/6250 to http://www.incidentnews.gov/incident/6250
*Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/69UsqLFNF?url=http://www.marinergroup.com/oil-spill-history.htm to http://www.marinergroup.com/oil-spill-history.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081027093928/http://www.incidentnews.gov/incident/6241/ to http://www.incidentnews.gov/incident/6241
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) 00:03, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: Remove "Solby's academically accelerated class took off on a mass journey to discover the advanced reasoning behind such science of oil and water. Below is the research they concluded." (the second paragraph) as it seems unnecessary. 138.87.133.14 (talk) 15:34, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Done  Spintendo  15:59, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 3 December 2018 

message: and oil is one of the environment the bodies of water. method of separeting mixtures can be used in order to solve the problem 119.93.199.43 (talk) 13:39, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  science 

message: I work with developing systems for sensitivity mapping (Environmental Sensitivity Index (ESI) mapping)" and find that the section ESI mapping might deserve its own page so that the methods in question can be further elaborated. The ESI part of this article could then be made into a smaller one pointing to a more elaborate page. Comments? Ragnvald (talk) 10:45, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  ESI to have it's own page?