Talk:2010 Great Barrier Reef oil spill

Environmental Terrorism

According to an Reuters article (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE63302920100405), Gilly Llewellyn, director of conservation for the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) in Australia, has raised concern that there may be a pattern of environmental disasters caused by the Chinese owners of the ship that threatens the reef. Llewellyn was quoted by Retuers saying "We are seeing a concerning pattern potentially associated with this company."

The ship Shen Neng 1 belongs to the Shenzhen Energy Group, a subsidiary of China's state-owned China Ocean Shipping (Group) Company, better known by its acronym COSCO. In 2007, COSCO was linked to a major oil spill in San Francisco bay, while last year it was tied to another in Norway, both of which damaged environmentally sensitive areas. --Shan (talk) 16:13, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure of the causes for those incidents. There are a number of reports indicating this incident may of occurred as the ship was taking a reckless shortcut. - Shiftchange (talk) 16:26, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

There is no evidence that the vessel's owner Shenzhen Energy Transport Co. Ltd (see cite in main page) is a subsidiary of COSCO. On the contrary it seems to be a subsidiary of Shenzhen Energy Co. Ltd which seems to be listed on the Shenzhen Stock Exchange (and consequently is not a subsidiary of anyone). see www.sec.com.cn —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.239.73.75 (talk) 15:05, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Shen Neng 1

OK, so we've got two articles. I'm not in favour of a merge of either into the other so maybe it better if we try to decide in advance what each article is trying to do.

My suggestion is that this article concentrates on the pollution / environmental issues, while the Shen Neng 1 article concentrates on the ship itself, its history, and the salvage/subsequent fate of the ship. Mjroots (talk) 18:43, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd second that. -- saberwyn 21:36, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

And third. But would like to add that the confusion of authorities running around trying to sort out this mess is not helping clarity of what is on Wikipedia. The best summary of what has happened plus the biggest range of photos and a map of the location is not in the news reports, it is on the Queensland's Maritime Safety Queensland's headlines page. Will someone please figure out how to reference this excellent properly in the article instead of relying on third party rehashes?Leeshipley (talk) 20:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

That link to that specific headlines page is now gone, and I do not see anything like it on the headlines index page. - TexasAndroid (talk) 20:28, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

While I am at it, the exact location of the boat and therefore the damage doesn't seem to feature anywhere that I have found. "38 nautical miles east of Greater Keppel Island" and the large scale map supplied by the MSQ, are, in a difficult navigation area like the Barrier Reef too imprecise. Has anyone found the GPS coordinates referenced anywhere? Leeshipley (talk) 20:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

GPS position received via AIS on 2010-04-09 04:09 utc was 23°06.11'S 151°38.95'E (nothing received since 2010-04-03 02:30:57 UTC), GPS position for grounding given in the preliminary investigation report No. 274 for 2010-04-03 07:05 utc was 23°06.0'S 151°39.6'E --85.179.251.173 (talk) 08:47, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Damage

Further info here on the damage caused by the ship. Mjroots2 (talk) 13:54, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Date

The date in the introductory paragraph incorrectly stated the incident occurred on 29 May. This was changed to 3 April. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.102.82.184 (talk) 06:30, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2010 Great Barrier Reef 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/20110707022121/http://www.sec.com.cn/news/detail.aspx?id=41743&TypeID=0304 to http://www.sec.com.cn/news/detail.aspx?id=41743&TypeID=0304

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:18, 21 September 2016 (UTC)