www.fgks.org   »   [go: up one dir, main page]

Talk:Chevron Richmond Refinery

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ILike2BeAnonymous (talk | contribs) at 21:50, 21 July 2010 (moved Talk:Chevron Richmond Refinery to Talk:Chevron Richmond refinery: "Refinery" shouldn't be capitalized.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Latest comment: 15 years ago by Dynaflow in topic Inaccuracy in Chevron Richmond Refinery Entry

Article

Still under construction.Troyster87 (talk) 10:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Inaccuracy in Chevron Richmond Refinery Entry

Hello Wiki community. This is Justin with Chevron Corporation. I'd like to take a moment to bring an inaccuracy in the Chevron Richmond Refinery entry to your attention in hopes that someone from the community will take a moment to update the posting.

Under the "toxic spills" subhead. The Chevron refinery is attributed with the 1993 spill of oleum. This is incorrect. The spill was the responsibility of General Chemical of Richmond: [[1]]

Please see the following articles and news stories for further validation.

[[2]]

[[3]] (The bottom of the article confirms that General Chemical co was responsible for the spill)

"General Chemical has not had any major incidents since the 1993 oleum release that spewed a cloud of sulfuric acid over a 15-mile area, regulators said yesterday."

[[4]]


Chevron justinh (talk) 00:51, 28 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Justin. As a Wikipedian, you may be WP:BOLD and edit the article yourself to correct any inaccuracies you may find in this or any other article, so long as your edits to Chevron-related articles conform to spirit of the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guidelines. If you would like to cite your sources in the article, Wikipedia:Citing sources will show you how to format them. Thank you also for declaring your affiliation outright and exercising caution by explaining your proposed edits on the Talk page first before carrying them out; it's very refreshing to see a new corporate editor do that without prompting (to see how often that goes terribly, terribly wrong, check out Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard — endlessly entertaining). Happy editing. --Dynaflow babble 01:49, 28 February 2009 (UTC)Reply