Talk:Ixtoc I oil spill

Energy C‑class Mid‑importance

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 C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

At the time several investigations released information, a shortage of drilling mud barite (or baryte) was indicated as the proximate cause of the failure to control the well, not lost circulation per se. Information on contractual obligations regarding who was to ensure a reasonable supply of barite be on hand, which might lead to reasonably accurate fingerpointing, i.e., who was to blame, is not available that I have been able to find although surely it must exist. A Spanish speaker might be able to add substantial data to this article if access to Mexican archives is available.

Also the ecological effects on Mexican and U.S. shorelines - and possibly other island nations - need expanding. Many species suffered significant deaths. Shoreline ecosystems were thrown dramatically out of balance.

The economic costs alone of losing tourism along the Texas barrier islands was large.

Mydogtrouble (talk) 21:48, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've linked to a BLM executive report on the economic impacts of the spill dating from 1982, I am planning to see if other documentation is online over the next few weeks. Graham1973 (talk) 02:18, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, the then Texas governor, William Clements, was tied to Sedco, the firm whose rig was used in the Pemex operation. He is widely quoted as saying when asked what his plan was to clean up the spill "pray for a hurricane." Mydogtrouble (talk) 21:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC) 220.235.42.124 (talk) Graham1973 (talk) 02:18, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have memories of reading a childrens book set in Australia that was clearly based on the Ixtoc I blowout, I am currently engaging in research to find the title/author. Graham1973 (talk) 02:00, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added some information, it needs to be cleaned up probably pretty heavily. I also don't know how to wiki very well so I don't know how to cite sources in this thing. Are we allowed to use restricted sources? --Tim Thorpe (talk) 16:16, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we are allowed to use print and book sources, if that's what you mean. See WP:REF for some guidelines. hbdragon88 (talk) 20:23, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added Sedco. Link for citation at NOAA http://www.incidentnews.gov/entry/508786 Sedco needs its own article explaining evolution into Transocean co. Mydogtrouble (talk) 19:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone tell the actual spelling of the title of this well? I'll bet most can't tell from the silly font used there. Why does an L and an I and a 1 all have to look the same? This appears extremely shortsighted, and I'd like to know if anyone else finds this as troubling. - KitchM (talk) 23:59, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It can get a little confusing sometimes but it's not that big a deal. "View source" gives a serif font, for example. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 08:22, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following report about Ixtoc I just appeared in the Seattle Times as part of coverage of the ongoing Deepwater Horizon spill:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2011931961_ixtoc23.html

I didn't put it in the article since I think a 2010 news report colored by an ongoing incident is not such good sourcing for a 30 year old spill that presumably received significant scientific and governmental attention. So there should be better stuff available. Still, I'm putting it here in case it's useful to editors. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 02:56, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arizona Republic article: [1] 69.228.170.24 (talk) 09:01, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Subsurface distributions of petroleum from an offshore well blowout. The Ixtoc I blowout, Bay of Campeche

Paul D. Boehm, David L. Fiest Environ. Sci. Technol., 1982, 16 (2), pp 67–74 DOI: 10.1021/es00096a003 Publication Date: February 1982

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es00096a003

69.228.170.24 (talk) 23:03, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is lots of "aftermath" which remains to be included. The legal aftermath, in which liability (how was this resolved?) was explored by various parties in transnational venues such as described in this case, for example: http://openjurist.org/767/f2d/1140/sedco-inc-mobile-drilling-unit-sedco-v-petroleos-mexicanos-mexican-national-oil-co-sa

Mydogtrouble (talk) 02:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to both sources cited on this page regarding the severity of the oil spill, the Ixtoc I spill was the largest non-military oil spill. I've made the change to the article unless someone feels that this is not the case. Kakomu (talk) 00:20, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• granted...the links are dated, and the total of the horizon is sketchy, but the tally is as follows, and here:

1. Lakeview Gusher ~9,000,000 bbl
2. Deepwater Horizon ~5,000,000 bbl
3. Ixtoc I oil spill ~ 3,000,000 bbl

--emerson7 01:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit conflict: :Although your change should not have been reverted without explanation, it appears that this is the second largest accidental spill after the Lakeview Gusher. I can't verify the sources, but I will assume good faith. Accidental isn't much of a distinction, so we could just leave it as the third largest spill. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 01:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

explanation was included above. --emerson7 05:51, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Was this name given before or after the accident? It seems more than ironic that it's an anagram for "toxic"76.246.235.134 (talk) 22:35, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]