Talk:Deepwater Horizon explosion/Archive 1

Archive 1

Same day company started trading on Swiss SIX exchange

An explosion and fire is not the sort of thing that goes well with http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=113031&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1411769&highlight=

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.232.94.33 (talk) 09:06, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

How deep?

How deep is the water where it sank? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.232.94.33 (talk) 20:51, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

About 5000 feet. Beagel (talk) 21:39, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Drill depth

The specifications of the rig are available right here. http://www.deepwater.com/fw/main/Deepwater-Horizon-56C15.html?LayoutID=17 Max drill depth is 30,000 feet. The 5,500 foot number in this article is clearly incorrect, especially when the maximum water depth is 8,000 feet (upgradeable to 10,000, but of course not now after sinking). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.232.94.33 (talk) 20:56, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Ensure that you distinguish between the ACTUAL location water depth (some 5000+ feet), borehole depth, and the maximum drilling depth (water and borehole) specifications for the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig (water depth: 8000 feet or 10000 feet with upgrades; borehole 30000 feet.) HerbM (talk) 07:04, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Map of oil spill

Approximate oil locations from April 25, 2010 to April 30, 2010

[1] is a map of the spill, created by NOAA which should mean it is not copyrighted per being US Government created material. Can anyone convert this to a file type suitable to be uploaded and included? Aalox (talk) 19:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

added govtrust

Confusion

What does "Once the cementing was complete, it was due to be tested for integrity and a cement plug set to abandon the well for later completion as a subsea producer." mean? Stovl (talk) 06:23, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

i don't know that was said, but what it means is they intended to plug the well before starting to operate it. that btw. has nothing to do with this procedure of 'cementing' that is concerned with things around the borehole, and not inside.80.57.43.99 (talk) 11:03, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Lack of info on explosion and fire

I reorganized the section previously called "Explosion and rescue efforts" into two sections called "Explosion and fire" and "Casualties and rescue efforts." What this revealed is that, altho this article is titled as if it's about an explosion, there is almost no content about the explosion. Or for that matter the fire that raged for two days.

The explosion and fire, resulting in 11 (presumed) deaths and the sinking of the rig, may have been article-worthy in their own right even without the spill -- but quite possibly could be merged with the Deepwater Horizon article, a la the Titanic.

The what and why and how of the explosion and fire sections should grow. But should not be part of the article on the oil spill, which will be a growing and continuing story for a while, it looks like, sadly.Popsup (talk) 20:49, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Why is the accident described as suspicious?

It appears that this has been inserted twice without any justification. 66.147.172.7 (talk) 22:07, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The speculation has been removed and the persistent vandal blocked. GaussianCopula (talk) 23:39, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

When I added the coordinates of the rig, I centered the coordinates to the middle of Mississippi Canyon Block 252 (that was on the day of the explosion or the day after). It's pretty good, but if anyone has gotten more precise coordinates in the last week, please add them. - Gump Stump (talk) 18:41, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Well "name" is Macondo Prospect in the Mississippi Canyon. Wikipedia article on Macondo exists. No lat/lon.

From http://www.subseaiq.com/Data/Project.aspx?project_Id=562 The Macondo prospect is located on Mississippi Canyon Block 252 in the Gulf of Mexico in a water depth of 4,993 feet (1,522 meters). BP serves as the operator, holding a 65% interest in the prospect; Anadarko holds 25%; and MOEX 2007 holds the remaining 10%.

• I have added accurate coordinates obtained from the google earth ASPECT data pack available on the EPA's spill website (direct link to data here, spill website link here). - Gump Stump (talk) 20:24, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Death of 11

Could someone, who can, please edit the open paragraph to include that 11 people lost their lives due to this explosion? PRONIZ (talk) 23:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

There is a mention in the third paragraph related to the missing workers. They have not been declared dead yet although I think it will be just a matter of time. I don't see a reason to rush and declare them dead until authorities do so. At the heart of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, 11 grieving families —Preceding unsigned comment added by GaussianCopula (talk • contribs) 00:15, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

It is mentioned in both the lead and the Casualties and rescue efforts section. Mentioned they are missing and presumed dead.--Labattblueboy (talk) 13:43, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

truthout.org source

I submitted a bit of information - a truthout.org piece, written by BBC journalist Greg Palast, reports that at least one worker has claimed that BP failed to inform Halliburton of the actual depth of the well, resulting in a too-small concrete cap, resulting in blowout. I'm not sure how this information should fit in, but I feel like "at least some have claimed that BP may have misled contractors ..." or something merits inclusion. In any case, I'm unreverting it for the moment. Swakeman (talk) 05:05, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I understand why this quote is relevant and should be included. But this quote is part of the following article.

• I've seen this movie before.
• Tankers run aground, wells blow out, pipes burst. It shouldn't happen, but it does.
• That's because responding to a spill may be easy and simple, but not at all cheap. And BP is cheap. Deadly cheap.
• But it was all a lie.
• And here we go again. Valdez goes Cajun.
• I wonder if BP painted the capsule green, like they paint their gas stations.
• In the end, this is bigger than BP and its policy of cheaping out and skiving the rules.
• Americans want government off our backs ... that is, until a folding crib crushes the skull of our baby, Toyota accelerators speed us to our death, banks blow our savings on gambling sprees and crude oil smothers the Mississippi
• This just in: Becnel tells me that one of the platform workers has informed him that the BP well was apparently deeper than the 18,000 feet depth reported. BP failed to communicate that additional depth to Halliburton crews, who, therefore, poured in too small a cement cap for the additional pressure caused by the extra depth. So, it blew.

All I am saying is that this opinion piece will be likely reverted as news items are relayed. If you believe that it should be included now then go ahead. It will be corroborated soon enough as news articles indicate and all that will happen is that many of these personal claims will likely disappear.

I have no issue with the quote, it is only the article which encompasses the quote, which is simply an opinionated piece. GaussianCopula (talk) 05:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I added something like that to the Explosion and Fire section. Let me know what you think. Swakeman (talk) 06:17, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Apparently this article has been cleared as a reliable source. [2] FWIW. Swakeman (talk) 06:19, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I see where it's noted that truthout.org and Greg Palast are considered reliable sources in general, by at least one editor; however, this is a third-hand anecdote, period. In addition, it's from a lawyer trying to make a case against BP...hardly a reliable source in itself. There are lots of conflicting stories out there. some from first-hand sources (who aren't lawyers with a case to sell the press). They are all anectdotal though, and their inclusion in a Wiki article of this sort serve only to propagate rumors, not objective fact. I am removing it on that basis. --EECEE (talk) 07:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I didn't write that it was an objective fact, only that at least one reliable source had suggested that as a possibility. I provided a citation to the article in which that is claimed. What about it as written was not factual? Swakeman (talk) 18:25, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Even though you stated that "a source suggested" it, the rest of the paragraph was presented as objective fact: like "workers claimed," "as a result, Halliburton set the cement" etc. These are not objective facts;, someone told someone else that workers claimed something. That makes it a third-hand rumor, and one propagated by a lawyer trying to make a case. It is no more worthy of inclusion in this article than any other third-hand rumor floating around out there, no matter who quotes it, and possibly less worthy because of its questionable source (the lawyer). I'm removing it from the article and request that you don't turn this into a revert war. If you want it included, please ask for more opinions before doing so. So far it's two to one. --EECEE (talk) 18:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I provided a reliable source with relevant information. If you don't like the way I phrased or included that information, I would welcome your suggestions on improvement. Beyond that, I suggest you try to be constructive instead of just immediately deleting anything you think is imperfect. By the way, this isn't a democracy. Swakeman (talk) 23:06, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Really, what is it, a theocracy? You continue to insert unsupported rumor as fact. This is not appropriate for a Wiki article.--EECEE (talk) 23:31, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I continue to replace a fact, cited with the relevant reliable source, that at least one journalist has referenced this idea. As to democracy, I suggest you read: Don't revert due to "no consensus" and perhaps reverting. -- Swakeman (talk) 23:36, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

No, you continued to present an unsupported rumor as fact. I edited for accuracy to prevent a revert war. It's still an unsupported rumor propagated by a lawyer with an agenda and included in an opinion piece/rant. As I suggested to your "friend" with the URL, if you want to have a section devoted to "Rumors" go right ahead, but include them all.--EECEE (talk) 23:52, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh and by the way, Swakeman, that "no consensus" rule just means one should state a substantive reason for a revert, which has been true in every case. Try again. --EECEE (talk) 07:42, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm perfectly fine with your modification as it stands now.-- Swakeman (talk) 00:12, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

It simply makes clear this is an unsupported rumor coming from a biased source. It still doesn't belong in the article and I'm pretty sure it will come out when the article is cleaned up or the actual facts come out, whichever is sooner.--EECEE (talk) 00:19, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

• • I'd like to see a leading news media source used in conjunction with the truthout.org citation. If that's not possible I have serious doubts as to the validity or appropriateness in the article.--Labattblueboy (talk) 03:36, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to see something besides a third-hand unsupported rumor published in a rant piece, no matter who publishes it. After all, I'm sure we can find plenty of sources that have published rumors that it was greenies/North Koreans/etc. who sabotaged the rig...that doesn't make them anything but unsupported rumors. --EECEE (talk) 07:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

That's absurd. Another high-caliber editor already decided on the Wikipedia:Reliable Sources talk page that truthout was a FINE source! 24.255.165.125 (talk) 03:57, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh please. The editor thought it was an acceptable source generally. Nothing about rant pieces published by that source. As you perfectly well know.--EECEE (talk) 07:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I just want to add that I don't think that any of the comments here against this quote being included are impeaching truthout.org as a source for quotable material. The fact does remain though that this specific article linked to truthout.org is a very laden opinionated piece. We can't just select part of this and ignore the rest. If we were to include parts of this article we should also include that: BP is cheap and it is deadly cheap. We should include that the previous report by BP regarding the safety of offshore drilling was all a lie. We should wonder whether BP painted the capsules green like their gas stations. And finally, we should wonder whether Becnel told the author of this article the actual circumstances which led to this unfortunate incident. We cannot ignore the nature encompassing an entire article in the selective basis of a quote. Either the entire article is quote worthy or else it is not. GaussianCopula (talk) 07:55, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I dunno, if the New York Times reported -as part of a regular news item - that a plaintfiff's lawyer said an unnamed "worker" told him they were performing a hula dance when the well blew, would that be a quote worth including? To me, it's the unsupported speculation, not just the source repeating it. --EECEE (talk) 00:55, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Correction: a blowout is not a fire

The section on "Explosion and fire" has this passage: 'had accumulated inside the marine riser and as it came up it "expanded rapidly and ignited", an event known as a blowout.' This isn't right. A blowout is an uncontrolled flow from a well, whether it is on fire or not. Not sure how it should be fixed, but it needs it. Marzolian (talk) 22:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request - update to Pre-spill precautions

{{editsemiprotected}}

Requesting that additional info be added to the "Pre-spill precautions" section detailing the Interior Department granting an exemption to BP from a detailed environmental impact analysis last year:

Pre-spill precautions
In February 2009, BP filed a 52-page exploration and environmental impact plan for the Macondo well with the federal Minerals Management Service, an arm of the U.S. Interior Department that oversees offshore drilling. The plan stated that it was "unlikely that an accidental surface or subsurface oil spill would occur from the proposed activities" and that "due to the distance to shore (48 miles) and the response capabilities that would be implemented, no significant adverse impacts are expected".[45]

(start of new paragraph)
After concluding that a massive oil spill was unlikely, the Interior Department exempted BP's Gulf of Mexico drilling operation from a detailed environmental impact analysis last year. The decision by the department's Minerals Management Service (MMS) to give BP's lease at Deepwater Horizon a "categorical exclusion" from the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) on April 6, 2009 -- and BP's lobbying efforts just 11 days before the explosion to expand those exemptions -- show that neither federal regulators nor the company anticipated an accident of the scale of the one unfolding in the gulf.[3][4]
(end of new paragraph)

Although the BP wellhead had a blowout preventer (BOP) installed, it was not fitted with additional remote-control or acoustically-activated triggers for use in case of an emergency requiring a rig to be evacuated: it did have a "deadman" switch designed to automatically cut the pipe and seal the well if communication from the rig is lost, but this switch did not activate.[46] Both Norway and Brazil require the device on all offshore rigs, but when the Minerals Management Service considered requiring the remote device, a report commissioned by the agency, as well as drilling companies, questioned its cost (approximately $500,000) and effectiveness.[46] In 2003 the agency ultimately determined that the device would not be required because rigs had other back-up systems to cut off a well.[46][47]

DLCruise (talk) 04:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Done Text edited/added. Sorry for the inconvenience with the semi-protection. jonkerz♠ 04:29, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Was/Is

The Deepwater Horizon is owned by Transocean, even though it may be a wreck at the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico, at least until such time that the insurance underwriter, if any, pays Transocean for the loss. That's the law. Unless someone can come up with a citation that the payment has already been made, it should be kept in the present tense. I've changed it here and at Deepwater Horizon oil spill a couple of times already, and some editors keep reverting it.—Quicksilver^{T @} 16:36, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. International Maritime Law, and the sources cited, clearly reflect the wreck of the rig is still owned by Transocean. N2e (talk) 18:00, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

• Deepwater Horizon is no longer a rig, its a wreck. If you want to include that Transocean still owns the wreck and have a source to do so, fill your boots. Personal interpretation (original research) of maritime law is however unwanted.--Labattblueboy (talk) 19:58, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Have another beer, Labattblueboy, and go take a long walk off of a short pier.—Quicksilver^{T @} 14:32, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

No. Transocean owned and owns it until a reliable source tells us otherwise. Kittybrewster ☎ 20:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

There needs to be a source that says something one way or the other to merit a change and frankly I haven't seen a media piece that addresses the issue regarding ownership. I entirely agree that Transocean likely still owns the wreck. However, that element of text, at current, has nothing to do with the issue or ownership but rather that the Deepwater Horizon is no longer a rig and is now a wreck. Past tense is appropriate under such conditions.--Labattblueboy (talk) 02:16, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Here is a source that says it was Transocean event: Gulf of Mexico oil spill: Transocean on the block over rig safety record in a reliable source, The Daily Telegraph (UK). Of course, Wikipedia cannot determine "truth" -- but at this time it is as valid to say that this is a Transocean disaster as it is a BP disaster. Here is the relevant quotation from the UK Telegraph news story: BP says "This was not our accident. This was not our drilling rig. This was not our equipment. It was not our people, our systems or our processes. This was Transocean's rig. Their systems. Their people. Their equipment" N2e (talk) 21:03, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

BP CEO Tony Hayward can blame Transocean if he wants and surely it's going to cost that company a lot of money too. However, in this video statement he acknowledges that it's BP's problem. The oil company obtains permission from the US government to be there, and is fully responsible if anything goes wrong. Here is the plan they filed with the Minerals Management Service. "Under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, BP has responsibility to pay for clean up of the spill ...". This BP release refers to the "the cost to the MC252 owners". That includes BP and its minority partners, Anadarko and Mitsui. I think that makes this a BP spill. Marzolian (talk) 01:43, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Blowout or Suspicious?

It is inappropriate to delete "blowout" as the cause of the spill. However, if a proper source can be located, it might be appropriate to characterize the blowout as suspicious. --N419BH (talk) 21:25, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

it was in several (us)papers, among other things that a safety instrument was replaced by a testing one. if i stumble into it again i get back on it. one (us)paper even stated that it was explicitly found as a cause. some days ago though..i second suspicious for the case you make.80.57.43.99 (talk) 20:01, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Workers kept at sea, then confined to hotel rooms and coerced into signing documents

NPR had a lengthy report on surviving workers kept at sea for 15 h, then confined to hotel rooms, not allowed to contact their families and coerced into signing documents by Transocean lawyers. Does anybody have a print source on this and want to put in the article? I have real stuff I must do right now. Abductive (reasoning) 19:02, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm all for inclusion if we can find a source. --N419BH (talk) 19:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Here it is on NPR's website. --N419BH (talk) 19:06, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be referred to as duress?Smallman12q (talk) 02:09, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

These claims are denied by Transocean.[5] Beagel (talk) 16:22, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

60 Minutes segment- Blowout: The Deepwater Horizon Disaster

This segment was on 60 Minutes last night: Blowout: The Deepwater Horizon Disaster. It explains some of the mishaps leading to the disaster. --Millstoner (talk) 14:49, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Lease rights to Deepwater Horizon

Current, states "leased to BP 75%, Anadarko 25% and Mitsui 10%", which adds up to 110%. This is impossible, citation 15, says that BP is actually leasing 65%. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.156.2.12 (talk) 18:55, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The "missing, presumed dead"

must have families with merpeople by now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Athinker (talk • contribs) 15:07, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree, they are dead. Just call them dead. Every other source is calling them dead. It looks creepy to refer to them as "missing." They are not missing. They are dead, despite the fact that bodies were not recovered. 64.142.90.33 (talk) 07:28, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

"presumed dead" is factually correct. stating that they are dead (implying fact) cannot be verified. just because their whereabouts haven't come to public attention doesn't mean they are dead. there may well be good reasons why they don't want to be found. if i were in their position i would possibly fear being found by the responsible companies, not from my wrongdoing (assuming i were innocent) but from mistreatment and legal threats. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.129.23.146 (talk) 07:38, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Spill flow rate internal reference

I agree that the wording in the lead should be clear that there is much debate and a wide range of estimates, but citing another section of the same article is extremely bad practice. There is a link to that section (which I just fixed) directly below where Aalox added this internal citation, which should be sufficient. Any citations must adhere to Wikipedia's policy on verifiability and guideline on reliability, which a circular citation to Wikipedia fails completely. There are other ways to resolve disagreements about content.--~TPW 15:47, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Aalox post the following message to my talk page, which I am copying here to keep the discussion in one place:

Would you mind replace the reference you removed from the lead of Deepwater Horizon oil spill. That particular sentance has been the focus of a great deal of controversy, and I wanted to make it as clear as possible where those numbers are coming from (a summary of all the estimates detailed in Deepwater_Horizon_oil_spill#Spill_flow_rate). The reference isn't even that cicular, it is the lead referecing a subsection. I know that it isn't standard and proper to do so, but I really wanted to WP:Ignore all rules and have that in there until things calm down on this article.

By having that reference in there, I think it will stop people from going back and forth in a circle fighting about it that sentance, and productively moving forward with the expansion and refinement of this article.

Thanks, - Aalox (Say Hello • My Work) 15:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Ignoring all rules is definitely the way to go if you achieve consensus here to do so. I don't think an inline citation achieves your goal of making sure that the lead reflects the entire, broad range of credible estimates. Instead it harms the credibility of the article by saying, "we did our homework by looking further down the page." Citations are only used for citing reliable sources, not as a way to provide a link to another part of the page. Is there a news source which discusses how diverse the estimates are? That would be the best option in my opinion.--~TPW 17:21, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't notice the conversation you started here. A news article discussing the diversity of the estimates would be very good and I'll keep an eye out for one. Barring that, if it happens again, I support adding a temporary internal reference if others agree. - Aalox (Say Hello • My Work) 17:40, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Don't use an inline citation, since it's not necessary. Just link "numerous estimates" to the appropriate section and you will have the same effect. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 08:00, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Ownership needs to add up to 100%

{{editsemiprotected}}

Under the Background, deepwater horizon heading it states "the rig was owned by Transocean Ltd. and leased to BP 75%, Anadarko 25% and Mitsui 10% until September 2013"

It should say "the rig was owned by Transocean Ltd. and leased to BP 65%, Anadarko 25% and Mitsui 10% until September 2013"

The existing does not add up to 100%. After reading reference 15, I decided BP 65% is correct.

Wog400 (talk) 22:45, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Done -- œ^™ 01:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The rig was to leased to BP who was the only operator of the Macondo Prospect. The Macondo prospect was owned by BP 65%, Anadarko 25% and Mitsui 10% under a federal lease. Please do not confuse these two things. Beagel (talk) 03:50, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Casualties: victims' names are subjects of civil and criminal investigations and lawsuits, and so belong in Casualties section

I think deletion of the names of the victims is premature and ill-advised. Their names will be prominently figured in both civil and criminal investigations and litigation for years to come and so the mention of their names in this article helps ensure WP relevancy. Deletion of the two references establishing both who they were and what their roles were on the rig is inappropriate (and, I think worth noting, especially insensitive to their survivors in any case, as the first source cited below makes abundantly clear). Already discussed: Talk:Deepwater_Horizon_oil_spill/Archive_2#Casualties

I acknowledge the very helpful edit summary that "even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic" (section 5 of WP:NOTNEWS) and also that "Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others" (section 1 & 4 of WP:NOTDIR), but respectfully submit that the names of these human beings in the Casualties section are at least as important as the names of the threatened species in the Ecological effects section. Suggest revert if we can achieve a consensus that these names are indeed an exception to these WP guidelines (not laws), and for the above reasons. Anyone else have an opinion on this question? Paulscrawl (talk) 20:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The 11 men killed in the explosion were: Jason Anderson, 35, Midfield, Texas; Aaron Dale Burkeen, 37, Philadelphia, Mississippi; Donald Clark, 34, Newellton, Louisiana; Stephen Curtis, 39, Georgetown, Louisiana; Gordon Jones, 28, Baton Rouge, Louisiana; Roy Wyatt Kemp, 27, Jonesville, Louisiana; Karl Klepping, 38, Natchez, Mississippi; Blair Manuel, 56, Eunice, Louisiana; Dewey Revette, 48, State Line, Mississippi; Shane Roshto, 22, Franklin County, Mississippi; and Adam Weise, 24, Yorktown, Texas. Jones and Manuel were employees of M-I-Swaco, while the other nine worked for Transocean.

I adamantly concur. Please revert. My vote is for some inclusion of the deceased on the rig somewhere in the article. MichaelWestbrook (talk) 20:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Done Thanks, Michael. I'm pretty adamant, too, and it's late: other editors have edited with no objections. I'll be bold: upon further reflection, cited deletion criteria not at all applicable to appropriate mention of these victims' names in relevant Casualties section of this article. Deletion reverted. Paulscrawl (talk) 04:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Forgive me, but I am a newcomer here, and very confused...

What exactly gives Toyokuni3 the "final word" authority on deleting my entries here on this talk page, without a single welcoming word, patience, or good faith practiced towards me? I find such behavior impolite and lacking etiquette. Someone please throw this dog (ME) a bone. And before deleting this, I would appreciate someone (anyone!) making me feel more welcome by trying to explain what is going on here regarding this matter, whether on my talk page, email, or here. Thankyou kindly. I only want to help this project. MichaelWestbrook (talk) 19:45, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Michael, I think Toyokuni came off stronger than he'd meant and didn't realize he was dealing with new people. He was trying to control the length of the talk page, which is getting pretty long. Rather than posting each story individually, news ticker style, I think it'd be better to group them and to present them as new information for the article (for example "Add such and such information to article?" would be a more constructive section than "recent news story"). Anyway, thanks for the time you're putting in to this, hope you're not put off too much, there are a lot of people on Wikipedia (and this article in particular) and it can get a bit impersonal at times because of that. TastyCakes (talk) 20:23, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Thankyou kindly for the constructive criticism. That is all I ask, and communication is most constructive, I believe. I will practice restraint and work towards better organization skills as I become familiarized with this editing atmosphere called a "talk page". MichaelWestbrook (talk) 20:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Explosion and fire section, "Explosion Note"

Refering to the "Explosion Note" in the Explosion and fire section in the Background section.

First of all, what exactly is an "Explosion Note"? It doesn't seem to fit and you shouldn't just add it as a note, you should incorporate it into the article. Second, it provides no sources and although I haven't looked very hard, I cant find anyplace online to verify the information it provides. Third, do we actually know who is being quoted in the portion of the note in quotes? Maybe it is clear to others but no to me. Also, you shouldn't just copy and paste one long quote, you should cite the webpage or media you got it from, then write a paragraph about it. The quote is not written in an encyclopedia format and the informal style of writing used in it is inconsistent with the rest of the article. It uses abbriviations and company names (which was not clear to me that it was a company at first) and other slang that everyone may not know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stoopkitty (talk • contribs) 23:02, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

North Korea explanation

Multiple sources have pointed toward the potential involvement of north korea in the attack on the oil rig. A lot of questions remain to be answered. I understand the political sensitivity of publicly stating that North Korea is responsible in an official source like wiki. However, I think that the cause, should, at the least be changed to "undetermined" or "under investigation" That way, once hard proof such as documents or torpedo fragments are found, or if in fact they can be disproved, it will be much more conntinuos to the flow of the article at the time of the final change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.146.111.24 (talk) 21:52, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm a bit unsure if this post is utter nonsense, but for the record the explosion itself is dealt with in a separate article. __meco (talk) 21:57, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Sources debating N. Korea & Gulf oil spill:

• Huffingtonpost.com, "Randall Amster: Black Gold -- the Lifeblood of War", link: [6].
• "t r u t h o u t | Was the Gulf Oil Spill an Act of War? You Betcha", link: [7].
• Examiner.com, "Did North Korea sabotage Gulf oil rig, and did Obama cover it up?", link: (banned by spam-filter).

Wikipedia articles must wait for WP:RS reliable sources before posting highly controversial text such as speculation about North Korea with the oil spill. Please continue this discussion in the other article talk-page, not here. -Wikid77 (talk) 23:58, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Precious discussion on this topic is archived here. There is one more source speculating about this topic; however, no reliable sources available. Beagel (talk) 04:07, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I have semi-protected this article for a week to force discussion. Neither Truthout nor a HuffPo blogger are reliable source for the allegations being discussed. Horologium (talk) 12:09, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Here is another source [http://www.eutimes.net/2010/05/us-orders-blackout-over-north-korean-torpedoing-of-gulf-of-mexico-oil-rig/]

There is enough credible sources to include a discussion about a media blackout. USchick (talk) 00:34, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

In April, Obama authorized SWAT teams to investigate 29 oil rigs in the Gulf and said his administration is working to determine the cause of the disaster.[8]

On May 11, Department of the Interior released a press release announcing that the inspection of deepwater drilling rigs in the Gulf of Mexico found no major violations.[9]

On June 9, the FAA issued a no fly zone over the Gulf of Mexico oil spill and affected area until further notice. [10]

According to the New York Times, the Department of Homeland Security is limiting access to the area for major media outlets including ABC News and CNN. [11]

According to the European Union Times, the United States has ordered a complete media blackout over North Korea’s torpedoing of the Deepwater Horizon oil platform owned by the World’s largest offshore drilling contractor Transocean that was built and financed by South Korea’s Hyundai Heavy Industries Co. Ltd.[http://www.eutimes.net/2010/05/us-orders-blackout-over-north-korean-torpedoing-of-gulf-of-mexico-oil-rig/]

It was a drilling rig, not a platform

The two terms cannot be used interchangeably. A semi-sub or jack-up rig is not a platform, 'platform' refers to a production platform, and a platform by definition bolted to the seabed (apart from TLPs, of course). Can this be changed please, as it grates on me every time I read this. StarDelta (talk) 22:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done I found it in two places, let me know if you see something else.USchick (talk) 03:34, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

The term "platform" is still used throughout the article. I'm sorry if I come across as rather pedantic, but seeing incorrect terminology really weakens my faith in articles! StarDelta (talk) 21:25, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a source for this? Because I've heard people even in the industry refer to Deepwater Horizon and other rigs as drilling platforms or oil platforms. If you have a reliable source supporting the notion that this is a mistake, by all means lets change it. But if that is the case, calling offshore drilling rigs platforms is a very common mistake (see this Google search). TastyCakes (talk) 21:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm all for striving to preserve and maintain fine semantic distinctions, when informed usage warrants. But not this time. I suspect this word choice will come up again and again for years to come, so let me try to deal with this matter as "definitively" as possible – given the constraints of a coffee break -- for such a question of personal preference. In brief, careful writers don't care: both terms are demonstrably acceptable to experts when referring to production platforms housed on semi-submersible MODU rigs, such as the Deepwater Horizon rig | platform. It makes no difference. Consider the elegant variation of using both terms at once a grating flaw if you wish to so condemn, and so suffer; it remains common practice amongst our cited reliable sources, may God forgive their blasphemies. We humble servants of Wikipedia, who meekly summarize and cite, are angelically innocent of all such stylistic sins. PTL!

1a: Both "rig" and "platform" can be and are in fact routinely "used interchangeably" by competent authorities when referring to such semi-submersible MODUs in production mode. The International Marine Organization literally wrote the book on MODUs and while that is not avaiilable online, a search of Google Scholar for "IMO MODU Code" and "platform" shows 31 results while a search for "IMO MODU Code" and "rig" shows 26 results: a near draw.

2a: One industry lexicon glossary is the Schlumberger Oilfield Glossary, which at one point makes a fine distinction seldom observed in the wild by even the most careful writers, only later to effectively conflate the terms "platform" and "rig," reflecting actual usage:

• rig: The machine used to drill a wellbore. In onshore operations, the rig includes virtually everything except living quarters. Major components of the rig include the mud tanks, the mud pumps, the derrick or mast, the drawworks, the rotary table or topdrive, the drillstring, the power generation equipment and auxiliary equipment. Offshore, the rig includes the same components as onshore, but not those of the vessel or drilling platform itself. The rig is sometimes referred to as the drilling package, particularly offshore.
• semisubmersible: A particular type of floating vessel that is supported primarily on large pontoon-like structures submerged below the sea surface. ... Semisubmersibles (called semisubs or simply semis) can be used for drilling, workover operations, and production platforms, depending on the equipment with which they are equipped. When fitted with a drilling package, they may be called semisubmersible drilling rigs.

SOURCE: Schlumberger Oilfield Glossary

2b: A picture speaks a thousand words, from the same source: a semi-submersible whatchamacallit in a diagram labeled "Diagram of rig types and operating environments"

3: See also also the relevant definitions from the Exploration and Production Glossary, produced and edited exclusively by members of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, thus reflecting actual expert usage:

• Rig: typically a well drilling or service unit capable of pulling and running joined tubing.
• Platform: an offshore structure from which a well may be drilled or produced.
• Drilling Platform: usually offshore; a platform from which wells can be drilled. It may be permanent (with legs grouted into the seafloor to depths of several hundred feet), anchored or dynamically positioned.
• Semi-Submersible: a rig supported by attached pontoons.
• Offshore Platform: a fixed, moored, or dynamically positioned platform for hydrocarbon production or handling operations offshore.

SOURCE: SPE E&P Glossary

Good faith usage note: It is incorrect to assume a platform "by definition is bolted to the seabed." Platforms may be supported by earth, pontoons, or ships, as defined above, lighter than air balloons, wires, cranes, hovercraft, anti-gravity, or, given sufficient good "faith in [Wikipedia] articles," an unspecified number of angels. Yes, StarDelta, there are angels editing Wikipedia. O:-) Paulscrawl (talk) 16:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Bloody hell. StarDelta (talk) 17:32, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Govt Hearings/Investigation

Over on the spill page there are details as to the set-up and condition of the BOP as well as some other details which don't appear here. Initially I thought it would be useful as background but as they have not deternimed what failed it may not be important. thoughts? Discojim (talk) 02:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Good Job

Everyone wants to play the blame game, and the truth is when the investigations and trials are over, several BP execs are probably going to find themselves serving lengthy prison sentences. But I want to congratulate you (in the collective sense) for not playing the game until AFTER the process is over. Quoting survivors blaming BP (or whoever else) is appropriate, but putting the blame yet wouldn’t have been.174.25.20.170 (talk) 08:01, 15 June 2010 (UTC)A REDDON

Use of explosives to stop leak suggested recently - it was proposed in this article over a month ago - now you have a reference

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science_and_environment/10318188.stm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.45.58.46 (talk) 14:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

This article is about the drilling rig explosion. Please see this section of the oil spill article, where the proposed use of explosives to stop the leak is already mentioned. TastyCakes (talk) 16:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 71.109.170.83, 16 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Please change "due to the change in phone numbers of Houma, Louisiana flight operations center" to "due to a change to the telephone number of the oil reporting hotline" because http://tfr.faa.gov/save_pages/detail_0_5100.html states that the revised NOTAM was "DUE TO CHANGE IN PHONE NUMBER IN PARAGRAPH 10". The phone number in Paragraph 10 (of http://tfr.faa.gov/save_pages/detail_0_5100.html) is for an "oil reporting hotline at 866-557-1401". The phone number for the flight operations center was not in paragraph 10 (of http://tfr.faa.gov/save_pages/detail_0_5100.html). 71.109.170.83 (talk) 03:36, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Not done: Not protected. SpigotMap 12:18, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Who was on the rig?

Good morning knowledgeable Wiki contributors. I'm confused about who was actually on the rig and this article didn't help me. A couple of days after the explosion, a friend who does research for Shell in Egypt happened to come home and the idea I got from him was that BP had one guy there, probably in charge, most personal were from another company (Transocean?), the current operation (casing, I guess) was being handled by Haliburton, the BOP was owned or handled by guys from yet another company. I came here now, some weeks into the accident, to clarify this in my mind but there is nothing clear here about this. The US media and government are going bananas over BP, presumably as they are legally responsible, but I can't find any media reports on who was really there, who had their hands on the metal. As time goes by, the number of companies mentioned in various capacities keeps rising, now past a dozen, I think, and it's utterly confusing. Can anyone out there please straighten it out and put a new section in this article or the main oil spill article? 78.149.250.154 (talk) 08:33, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

The Rig was run by transocean under contract with BP. According to the news reports there were 8 (?) BP staff on board at the time of the explosion but most of those were executives who were only visiting. Usually the Client (BP though Anadarko and Mitsui also had minor stakes) will usually have a couple of represenatives (Company Men) onboard to oversea the operation. All the other personnel would have either worked for the operator (Transocean) or a Subcontractor (i.e. Haliburton)working directly for the Client (BP) . To answer your question as to who had their "hands on the metal" that would be Transocean personnel.

BUT BP, as they leased the block (drilling area) from the US government and own any oil coming from wells on the lease (along with their junior partners), also "own" any spill caused while operating on the lease (I think this is according to US law) and accordingly have to foot the bill for the cleanup. The question of who is responsible for the clean up is a separate matter to who was responsible for the explosion and resulting spill. until there is an exact cause found for the failure there is no knowing who is the responsible - The Rig, BOP and operating personnel were supplied by Transocean, The Casing provided by BP and the cementing work was done by Haliburton. Discojim (talk) 03:55, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

We Need to Include the Truth

Enough with the censorship. Along with some other brave editors, I have been adding the truth about this tragedy, namely the North Korean attack and the Obama coverup. Why is this being censored? People need to hear the TRUTH! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.16.168.221 (talk) 10:54, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

And what has been covered up this time? Was Elvis Presley responsible? Reliable sourcing, please, not "The Truth".--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:41, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

There is no censorship going on. Statements need reliable sources, as you've been told many times. I've raised the issue of stewweb at WP:SBL as consensus is that it is not a reliable source and is straying into the realms of an attack site, which are definitely not allowed to be used on Wikipedia. Mjroots (talk) 05:51, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Sadly "The Truth" appears to be a load of antisemitic rubbish.[12] Let's hope this receives a block at WP:SBL.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Category inclusion

I was about to include "Category:Deepwater Horizon oil spill" onto A Whale, when I realized that it wasn't spread among other other ships and politicians. Is there some standard that must be met before inclusion into it?--Hourick (talk) 14:36, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wreck

Hi all. Where does the wreck of the Deepwater Horizon lie? Can anything be salvaged? There doesn't seem to be any information anywhere about what's happened to the rig once it sank.Captain deathbeard (talk) 12:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Analysis of Blowout Preventer

Does anyone have the report on the BOP from the well? There is only passing mention that the BOP arrived at NASA too late for the report of its inspection to be included in the primary report, but no link to that NASA report.Wzrd1 (talk) 02:51, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Aftermath?

Might be good idea for something to be added about that. 82.169.255.79 (talk) 18:24, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

That would be better served in the Deepwater Horizon oilspill page, rather than here. Though, a link to that section of the article might be warranted. Thoughts, anyone?Wzrd1 (talk) 03:18, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Collision between the articles

Article at Deepwater Horizon oil spill says that 17 people were injured at Deepwater Horizon while this article says 16. So which number is correct? (Jan) 23:39, 17 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.151.127.108 (talk)

dates and organisation

While I understand that this is still a very new article, reading this, I can't help but to be confused by the lack of dates. I'm not sure what happened when, and how it relates to the explosion. Please fix. Griffinofwales (talk) 19:36, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

What? I see lots of dates. Too many, in fact, for the WP:SUMMARY style that will certainly be needed to make this event clearer. But for even more dates, see the linked Timeline of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Paulscrawl (talk) 19:52, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I am in agreement with Paulscrawl, we already have plenty when it comes to dates. Frankly, I find that there are too many dates included for comments that don't entirely need them.--Labattblueboy (talk) 17:10, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Today January 24, 2012 I sneezed, I can provide more if that would help clear things up. PixieDragon (talk) 14:10, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

References

The following reference article is no longer available via the link provided. Reference- 35. ^ Carroll, Joe (31 May 2010). "BP Cited ‘Well Control Situation’ Six Weeks Before Blowout". Bloomberg Businessweek. Retrieved 2010-06-04. ArishiaNishi (talk) 16:08, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Problematic edit

This series of edits[13] is the kind of thing that has happened before, in which a clear, reader-friendly discussion of a technical subject, sourced to a reliable secondary source (the Wall Street Journal), has been turned into impenetrable gobbledygook sourced to a primary source. That is why we have WP:PRIMARY. Beyond that, it is essentially a POV edit as it turns a clear exposition of what happened into a kind of murky wall of mud. This kind of edit needs to stop. Coretheapple (talk) 16:41, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Spending two paragraphs on a non existent acoustic trigger adds nothing of value to the section because its a red herring, the AMF functioned as designed. If I can find a secondary source summarizing the DNV report, would that be adequate? WeldNeck (talk) 16:47, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Certainly, if you find a reliable secondary source, by all means add it. But do not remove the Wall Street Journal source. You cannot interpret a highly technical primary source in order to contradict and override what a reliable secondary source says, and then go ahead and remove that secondary source because of your original research. What you're doing is completely contradicted by policy. If the Wall Street Journal's coverage of this area is inadequate then you need to take it up with the Wall Street Journal, not place your original research in the article. If there was no source on this issue it would be a different matter, but there is. Please do not edit war over this, as you are clearly acting against policy. Of course, I can't prevent you from doing so, but it is inadvisable. Coretheapple (talk) 16:54, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I removed the WSJ report because its not relevant, not because its contradicted by the DNV report. Sorry if I wasnt more clear about that. Saying the BOP was not equipped with an acoustic trigger informs the reader as much as saying it wasn't equipped with a Flux capacitor ... its completely irrelevant to what happened. The DNV report details what loss of communication safety devices were installed on the BOP. WeldNeck (talk) 17:00, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Please, on its face it is relevant to the article. We just can't yank out articles because we believe in our heart of hearts that they are wrong, and cite primary source documents in our support. I could dig into that same primary source document to try to make sense of it but then I would be carrying out original research myself. We are supposed to let secondary sources of reliability interpret documents like that. Coretheapple (talk) 17:03, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Just another point, if you don't mind: at least as objectionable was that it replaced a clear and understandable explanation with one that was opaque and filled with technical terms. Please keep in mind that we're supposed to simplify these things for the reader and that is one of the reasons why we rely on secondary sources, which is to do that. Coretheapple (talk) 17:15, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Apologies to WeldNeck for leaving a note on his Talk after the conversation was on here. Okay, so there seem to be two separate issues here. Firstly, what exactly are we trying to establish with the primary source? Is it a simple statement of fact, or something more complex? Does the statement of fact contradict secondary sources? Primary sources aren't forbidden, they just have to be used judiciously. The content that was removed will be probably be a more complicated discussion. Geogene (talk) 17:30, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

• Here just 2 of many sources showing how problematic the use of this primary source is: Fed board: Keep companies from oil spill evidence and Blowout preventer manufacturer questions Deepwater Horizon forensic report.TMCk (talk) 20:09, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

It sounds like you are rejecting the report itself, not the fact that it's a primary source. Geogene (talk) 20:19, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Nope, not doing such thing personally but wiki-vise it's problematic and thus we should use secondary sources in regards to the report.TMCk (talk) 20:28, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I did a quick Google for secondary sources on interpreting that report and found two good ones, the New York Times and the Christian Science Monitor ([14],[15]). What I got from reading them is that (1) there was some kind of switch to trigger the BOP if contact was lost with the rig (2) it didn't work, since the BOP was triggered two days later by ROV, and (3) it didn't really matter anyway since the BOP was not able to seal the well, due to forces exceeding its design capabilities. Geogene (talk) 20:14, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

That's what they said in the report but they also acknowledged the following:
"But under questioning earlier this week, Det Norske Veritas officials acknowledged that they had no physical evidence of the pipe bending and that the elastic bowing of the pipe was simply their theory of what happened based on modeling."
TMCk (talk) 20:25, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

This is a textbook example of a primary source that cannot and should not be used. Oh it sounds so impressive! Look at all the big words it has! But at bottom it is just a theory, and a disputed one at that. As for the secondary sources, I don't see a problem with them certainly, as long as the objections are included. Coretheapple (talk) 20:32, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.offshore-technology.com/projects/macondoprospect/

  Triggered by \boffshore-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 11:24, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 22:03, 9 April 2014 (UTC)