Talk:Deepwater Horizon oil spill/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

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

Link to BP wiki page

Why is there no link to the BP wiki page? Even the first mentions are unhighlighted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.76.78.175 (talk) 02:22, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Relief efforts

If you read the source, you would see this information is there:

Relief well:

Engineers are working on device to kill all animals inn the world. BP is also working on a "relief well" to intersect the original well, but this is experimental and could take two to three months to stop the flow.

Also, this information is NOT 'How to', this is inportant information regarding activies that are underway. Aalox (talk) 15:48, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

As it was it read more like "how to stop an oil leak", but that aside, the information you added:

If unable to close the blow out preventer (BOP) valves on the well head 5000 feet below the surface of the water using the ROV two other options remain to secure the source. The first and fastest is to place a dome over the well head capturing the oil and piping it to the surface to a storage vessel, this operation will take some time as the dome will have to be fabricated. The next option would be to bring in another drilling rig and either re-drill the well straight down, (as done in Australia), or cross drill from a little ways away and tap into the original borehole. Once the second drilling operation reaches the original borehole the operators could then pump drilling mud into the well to stop the flow of oil.

is three times the information you're quoting from the source and almost none of it is in the source (I've read the source- I'm the one who added it to the article) which makes the information original research and/or unpublished synthesis unless it's in another source, in which case you'll have to cite that for verifiability. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:48, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Then add information not in the source, delete information not in the source, or rephrase the information and leave the factual sourced essenece of it alone.' There was absolutely no reason to delete the entire paragraph.Aalox (talk) 16:55, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

There's no policy or guideline that requires me to tag it, but there is one that requires all information to be attributed to a reliable source. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:59, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I know about WP:V, I also know that is says "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed, but how quickly this should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article. Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. It has always been good practice to make reasonable efforts to find sources oneself that support such material, and cite them"

I Still maintain that There was absolutely no reason to delete the entire paragraph. I admit, last part of with details on re-drilling the well still lacked WP:V, but the remainder of it was sound and should not have been deleted. Aalox (talk) 17:09, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Then why did you restore material that clearly violates a core content policy? While we're quoting policy, let's go with "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material"- that's in bold face on WP:V. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:22, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I admitted my error in restoring the parts that were non-verified. What more do you want? Why can't you just jump off your high horse admit your error in DELETING VERIFIED information alongside the non-verified? Aalox (talk) 18:54, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

OK then, some of the information was verified. Now, changing the subject, I've nominated this article for ITN again in relation to the oil slick, but it'll need a bit of an update- I scraped something together from the BBC source earlier, but it could use a little more. The nomination is at WP:ITN/C#Oil slick in Gulf of Mexico if you're interested. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:14, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

IMHO it's entirely understandable to delete the whole thing if some adds a paragraph and only a tiny bit of it is in the source. It's ludicrious to expect someone to find out exactly which bit of a long addition is not sourced if most of it is not. The problem can be avoided if people learn to actually follow the source, and not just add information which they think is true and add a source at the end to give it a sense of legitimacy even though the source doesn't really say most of what they added. This is particularly the case in rapidly developing articles even more so ones which may be nominated for ITN in the future. {{fact}} tags are really only for information which has been in the article a long time and where it's expected it may be true but is unsourced but it's hoped someone can reference it (most likely someone other then the person who wrote it) rather then cases when the information was just added by someone who failed to source it (people should source things before they add them, not after, if they add things with the expectation they are going to source them sometime in the future, they should in the very least make that clear in their edit, and not be surprised if the information disappears regardless, they can always recover it from the edit history or as I said, far better just not added it in the first place, if necessary to save it on wikipedia for whatever reason, either use a sandbox, use the talk page or even perhaps add it to the article but hide it). In other words, from what I can tell HJ Mitchell doesn't really have to admit anything and acted entirely understandable here Nil Einne (talk) 09:31, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

For the record, it wasn't a tiny bit. I will highlight in bold everything that was sourced in the statement and show that about 75% was sourced, that isn't a tiny bit. The remainder was knowledge that could have easily been mistaken for common knowledge by anyone familar with drilling operations. Lets just put an end to this and move on. Everything is sourced and happy now.Aalox (talk) 11:28, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

If unable to close the blow out preventer (BOP) valves on the well head 5000 feet below the surface of the water using the ROV two other options remain to secure the source. The first and fastest is to place a dome over the well head capturing the oil and piping it to the surface to a storage vessel, this operation will take some time as the dome will have to be fabricated. The next option would be to bring in another drilling rig and either re-drill the well straight down, (as done in Australia), or cross drill from a little ways away and tap into the original borehole. Once the second drilling operation reaches the original borehole the operators could then pump drilling mud into the well to stop the flow of oil.

Source information quoted from [2]:

Efforts to stem the flow are being complicated by the depth of the leak at the underwater well, which is about 5,000ft (1,525m) beneath the surface.

Image with quote "ROV trying to activate Blow out preventer (BOP)

Engineers are working on a dome-like device to cover oil rising to the surface and pump it to container vessels, but it may be weeks before this is in place.

BP is also working on a "relief well" to intersect the original well, but this is experimental and could take two to three months to stop the flow.

it didn't say taht, it said "also experimental" (a dome is also unprecedented at such depth)80.57.43.99 (talk) 10:59, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

What are those cleanup booms filled with? Human hair soaks up oil like nobody's business. Fill pantyhose/nylons with hair, and you have an excellent skimmer.

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)

Boom?

Whats a Boom as referred to in this article? Is there a Wikipedia Page of the Boom they talk about? --33rogers (talk) 06:08, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

No they don't have it on Wikipedia, but a Boom is a barrier placed in a body of water to contain oil spills or debris.--Zbase4 (talk) 15:04, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I fixed it. Gandydancer (talk) 00:15, 3 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)

Oil spill or oil leak?

It seems to me that an oil spill is a finite event, such as when the hull of oil tanker is breached. This, on the other hand, has been a steady leak of about 5,000 barrels a day. Shouldn't the article reflect the difference? –Cg-realms (talk • contribs) 17:09, 03 May 2010 (EDT)

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)

Requested renaming and move

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Calliopejen1 concluded the consensus was: to move to Deepwater Horizon oil spill.--Labattblueboy (talk) 03:19, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

---

Deepwater Horizon drilling rig explosion → Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill — While this incident began and achieved notability with an explosion, the incident is now recognized as a disaster because of the oil spill it caused, more than the explosion which it began with. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 19:28, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support I agree with Labattblueboy Govtrust (talk) 19:45, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
• Comment Deepwater Horizon oil spill not Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill. Oil spill is not a proper name.--Labattblueboy (talk) 20:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
• Hold There is a merge discussion involving this page taking place at [[Talk:Deepwater Horizon#Merge discussion. I support the move but I'd like to see the merge discussion tied up before this is actioned.--Labattblueboy (talk) 20:28, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Support move to Deepwater Horizon oil spill, not Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill or BP Gulf of Mexico oil spill. The oil spill has quickly overshadowed the explosion itself due to the high environmental impact. That being said I would also support Deepwater Horizon rig explosion and oil spill --Labattblueboy (talk) 15:48, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: "BP Oil Spill", not "Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill", would be the common name. It's clear that the merge to "Deepwater Horizon" is not going to happen.--Jiang (talk) 21:05, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
• Please Explain: why is "oil spill" not capitalized? It's part of a proper name, isn't it? After all, it's not a type of oil spill but a specific Oil Spill. Wikkitywack (talk) 21:30, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
• Therefore, I support Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill. Btw, "BP Oil Spill" is much too vague, isn't it? Wikkitywack (talk) 21:30, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
  • no, are there other BP oil spills? Unless we can show the same term being used for separate incidents, it's not too vague.--Jiang (talk) 22:14, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Well, BP is a big oil company. I'm sure this is not their first spill nor is it likely to be their last. Wikkitywack (talk) 08:08, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
    • In fact, here's another BP oil spill: "Prudhoe Bay oil spill" (which should really be capitalized because it's a proper name). Wikkitywack (talk) 08:08, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
      • I'm with Wikkitywack on this one. There is more than one BP oil spill article so IMO "BP oil spill" is indeed too vague.--Labattblueboy (talk) 12:50, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
• Support Deepwater Horizon oil spill. It is specifically related to the Deepwater Horizon explosion and BP oil spill is too vague. Per WP:LOWERCASE Deepwater Horizon oil spill is an appropriate title. Beagel (talk) 07:23, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
• Hold pending merge discussion. However, I think "explosion" should remain in the title: the explosion was a significant and tragic event. -- Radagast3 (talk) 08:18, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
• support is exactly the first thing i entered the discussion page for. i would even suggest: deepwater horizon environmental catastrophy. becus oil spill is most ambiguous about size and impact, also what radagast says here is outrageous, it might invite oil corps to blow up a few personnel so as not to become identifiable in causing an ecological disaster. perhaps a split would also be better, the thing sunk after (an 'explosion event' of) two days, we are worrying on for at least 4 now.80.57.43.99 (talk) 10:55, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
• Comment Why can't it be the Deepwater Horizon disaster or similar? Abductive (reasoning) 17:14, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
• Comment Current title is an issue should be BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill in keeping with the likes of Exxon Valdez oil spill.188.223.6.168 (talk) 00:10, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
  • The final decision should be an amalgam of the above two comments by Abductive & 188.223.6.168 since it's not a traditional oil spill. Something like BP Deepwater Horizon oil disaster. Anyone else agree? Wikkitywack (talk) 08:17, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
• Support The oil spill is the primary focus in this article, not the explosion. This change should be combined with the change to BP, if consensus is reached. 134.84.126.30 (talk) 03:37, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
• Hold As time passes the media will refer to this more and more to what will eventually become its given name. Currently, I see that it is being mostly called Gulf Oil Spill or Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill, I don't doubt that this might change as the media starts to do its blanket coverage of this event and I wouldn't doubt that a more specific name to it will be anointed.(Edit: There is no reason why redirect pages like British-Petrolium Gulf Oil Spill or Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill can't be made in the meantime.) GaussianCopula (talk) 07:06, 2 May 2010 (UTC) Support After reading the article where the US government has named the incident "BP oil spill" and have officially given BP the responsibility for the incident, I agree naming the article as close to this as possible. GaussianCopula (talk) 08:00, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
• Support oil spill - lower case. Kittybrewster ☎ 07:54, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
• Support - also a more specific addition to the title may be needed in the future (ie 2010, or Gulf of Mexico) as Deep Horizon may have more than one spill. - Steve3849 13:24, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

The Deepwater Horizon is 5000 feet down on the ocean floor, it is safe to say it will not have another spill.Aalox (talk) 16:45, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support'. The explosion and the oil spill are one and same continuous event, and should be dealt with in the same article, named Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Exxon Valdez oil spill is named as it is, because the ship that sunk was called Exxon Valdez at the time of the disaster. Similiarly, we should call this incident here Deepwater Horizon oil spill after the name of the vessel involved, as it is to my understanding the only (or, by far, most) notable Deepwater Horizon oil spill ever recorded, and the vessel is now destroyed. Also, please note that the rig was not owned by BP (refer to the article). --hydrox (talk) 14:29, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
• Support moving and renaming but Oppose keeping "Deepwater Horizon" in the article title, and feel strongly that the title should include "Gulf." The oil spill is indeed the larger story, but people are not referring to this incident by the name of the rig and not looking for information by that name. The spill is mainly coming from the well and its riser pipe, not the rig, so naming the spill after the rig's name is misleading.

Why include "Gulf"? If you spend some time using Google search trends, searches incorporating "Gulf" or "Gulf of Mexico" far surpass searches including "Deepwater Horizon," which peaked on April 20 and have declined since. The Unified Command site also uses a geographical reference, calling it the Gulf of Mexico-Transocean Drilling Incident". The use of "Gulf" seems especially important to people in Louisiana and Texas.

Why include "BP"? Searches on "BP oil spill," too, far exceed those for "Deepwater Horizon oil spill." See http://www.google.com/trends?q=BP+spill%2CGulf+oil+spill%2CGulf+of+Mexico+oil+spill%2Coil+spill%2CDeepwater+explosion&ctab=0&geo=us&geor=all&date=mtd&sort=0 (you can compare up to 5 search terms). The EPA and White House seem to be calling it the BP oil spill. But there have been or may be other BP spills, so the article and incident need reference to the Gulf of Mexico.

(FYI: Above comments originally part of comment by Popsup (talk), signed 16:51, 2 May 2010 (UTC) below (see editing history). Wotnow (talk) 23:46, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

We shouldn't name an article something just because of the terms likely used to find them, especially when in 10, 20 years there is likely to be another spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Redirects are useful for getting people to this article that are searching for it under another name, the title of this article need to stand the test of time. Aalox (talk) 16:59, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

• I am ambivalent on capitalizing "oil" and "spill". Playing devil's advocate, I note that the government's Facebook page is called "Deepwater Horizon Response." I suspect that BP would really, really not like to have this spill associated with their brand. However, enabling BP's marketing is not a proper consideration of Wikipedia. Popsup (talk) 16:51, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
• Support Current title is an issue should be Deepwater Horizon oil spill in keeping with the likes of Exxon Valdez oil spill. Gulf of Mexico is too vague, see Ixtoc I, as is BP, see any number of their spills. The white house is able to get away with BP oil spill, because everyone has heard about it and knows what they are talking about, years from now, that will not work. That title will not stand the test of time. Aalox (talk) 17:08, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
• Support and done, finally, in keeping with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Oil_spills_in_the_United_States in which 12 of 13 named US oil spills are in style "Name oil spill". And it is most certainly relevant that organic search terms should be a consideration in article name, as relevancy of Wikipedia is tied to findability of Wikipedia. Google results, as of May 2, 2010: 1,110,000 for "Deepwater Horizon oil spill"; 170,000 for "Deepwater Horizon drilling rig explosion" The most common comparison in news -- and very likely, for years to come -- is to the "Exxon Valdez oil spill" as it is widely known. The explosion is now of secondary importance, and a redirect should be done from that title, if desired, but the primary reference should be to what is primarily refered to even now as the "Deepwater Horizon oil spill". Just as the condition of the captain of the Exxon Valdez is now secondary to the long-term effects of that oil spill, so to with this incident. It is the effects, not the cause, that matter the most. --Paulscrawl (talk) 19:42, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Again, why not something like BP Deepwater Horizon oil disaster? It's more comprehensive (and accurate). As to what names are most popular, not enough time has passed for a proper name to congeal. Wikkitywack (talk) 21:04, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
• Support change to Deepwater Horizon rig explosion and oil spill. BP should not appear as it was not their rig, but a redirect can bring a search on BP oil spill back to this page. In time the name of the oil prospect Macondo or the location Mississippi Canyon 252 maybe become more relevent, but that's for the future ! (andyminicooper (talk) 21:19, 2 May 2010 (UTC))
  • Deepwater Horizon rig explosion and oil spill is so much more cumbersome than something like Deepwater Horizon oil disaster which in effect says the exact same thing. We want to keep the title as clean & simple as possible, right? And I think "disaster" accomplishes this. As to BP, what about this sentence from the second paragraph of the article: "The U.S. Government has named BP as the 'responsible party in this incident' and will hold the company accountable for all costs and damages resulting from 'the BP oil spill'." Support: BP Deepwater Horizon oil disaster. Wikkitywack (talk) 21:46, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
• Support change to Deepwater Horizon oil spill. It contains key terms by which people can find the article at a later date. Some people will remember the name of the Deepwater Horizon. For others, especially subsequent generations, beginning with the generation of current younger children, the name Deepwater Horizon may not have any memory salience (depending on e.g. where in the world they live - including in first world countries - and their education curricula), and they will find material on it (here or elsewhere) while searching for information about significant oil spills.

This was certainly the case with the Exxon Valdez. Sure its name is now back in the headlines as a comparative spill from environmental perspectives, which the Deepwater's has - as we write - the potential to surpass. But until its re-entry into the headlines, the name Exxon Valdez meant nothing to lots of people, especially the generation who were too young to be paying attention to world events at the time, and to generations not yet born. I personally tested this out on some intelligent, tertiary-educted people in 1994, and again about a decade later. Mention Alaskan oil spill, and you got a better result. Having said that, there are always people hearing about a unique name, thinking "what's that about?" and searching using the unique name. This applies to some of the people I dealt with.

So it's not about things like ships names being more memorable than the names of oil rigs. It's about things like autobiographical memory, memory salience (with all its subtleties like headline turnover etc), repitition, etc. It's true that in future more people will find out about the Deepwater spill as a product of searching for information on oil spills, than by searching specifically for information about Deepwater Horizon. But until recently, this was also true of Exxon Valdez. But there is no way to know how any given individual will stumble onto information about a specific event. The title Deepwater Horizon oil spill is succinct enough not to be cumbersome, but contains enough cues for to capture a range of searches from people looking for information on this topic. Wotnow (talk) 22:28, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Since it's not just a spill (it was also an oil rig explosion) - why not call it "BP Deepwater Horizon oil disaster" (with or without the "BP")? That way it's just as succinct and people know it wasn't just a spill a la Exxon Valdez. Comment? Wikkitywack (talk) 01:57, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support change to Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill. BP Oil Spill is too vague as BP has already had oil spills and is likely to have several more. Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill is unambiguous. Regarding the dispute between "oil spill" or "oil disaster," local news in New Orleans continues to call the event an oil spill and that is what most people in the area are calling it. Ewick12 (talk) 02:58, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
  • The point is: it isn't simply an oil spill and therefore shouldn't be labeled as such. We have a chance here to mold the title into something succinct and accurate. It's only been a week so there's no consensus on the name. The local news is focusing on what it is currently. When we look back on the incident months, years from now we'll see that it wasn't simply an oil "spill". I think the title should reflect this. Wikkitywack (talk) 05:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
• 'Support rename Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Green Cardamom (talk) 05:04, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
• Support move to Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Even the initial event was a blowout that happened to cause an explosion. Redirects will catch all realistic searches. If a better title comes along, it can be moved again. Abductive (reasoning) 06:46, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
• Support move but not to Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Think about it. The oil is not coming from the Deepwater Horizon. It is BP-leased oil gushing out of a BP well and, to be specific, it's coming out of Transocean hardware that BP paid Transocean to install. And every fix that BP is proposing is designed to keep on collecting that oil. That's what makes this different from all the tanker spills. It would be dumb to name a spill after something that the oil isn't leaking from. Call it BP Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill of 2010.Popsup (talk) 12:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Agree, except that "oil spill" should be lowercase --> BP Gulf of Mexico oil spill of 2010 – this is a longterm choice. BTW, I'm not opposed to inserting the word 'disaster'. - Steve3849 07:00, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
  • But don't you think BP Gulf of Mexico oil spill of 2010 is needlessly cumbersome? BP Deepwater Horizon oil disaster accomplishes the same thing with fewer words (and more accuracy - come on! This whole thing started with an explosion, right? That isn't oil "spill"!) Besides, "Deepwater Horizon" has a nice zing to it - and will be memorable in history books vs. "that BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010..." Wikkitywack (talk) 10:30, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
• Support move but not to Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Second the name change to BP Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill of 2010. Most readers won't have any idea of the connection between the oil spill and Deepwater Horizon. Most coverage links it to a) a BP well, and b) the Gulf of Mexico. These are the two elements that should be in the title. Cg-realms (talk) 12:36, 3 May 2010 (EDT)

No oil spill article on wikipedia lists a company's name in the title (unless the company named the ship that caused the spill after themselves). BP will get enough blame in the text of the article, to break a naming trend and add BP to the title would seem polictically motivated, we need to stay neutral. Would you suggest renaming Hurricane Katrina to FEMA/Bush Gulf of Mexico Hurricane of 2005? The title should stay in established naming conventions, and if people are looking for BP oil spill, a redirect will bring them here just fine. Readers would then have an connection between the oil spill and Deepwater Horizon the second they read the article. Aalox (talk) 12:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: I think there are a number of valid points regarding the naming. I created some redirect pages using some of the suggested names, on the assumption it might be possible to capture statistics. I realise afterwards that it might be an invalid assumption, given that the redirects go to the current article, and are probably counted in those statisics. But it is logically possible to capture redirect statistics. The questions are how, and whether someone somewhere has already addressed that question. If I've clouded rather than helped the issue, I have no objection to the redirects being nominated for deletion. But I suggest first see whether they raise any wildcard solutions. You can probably see what I'm trying to achieve via that exercise: are there other ways to think about a solution?

In that regard, some people have offered other ways to think about this. Following the suggestion of Aalox, I did check the Google trends page, to see what results Deepwater Horizon gave. Minimal result compared to the other terms (Google trends supports 5 searches, so I deleted the highest return - oil spill - since there's no question about statistics for that as a search term). So like the pirate with the wooden leg, I am prepared to stand corrected regarding Deepwater Horizon in the title. Wotnow (talk) 22:57, 3 May 2010 (UTC) I have reinstated the deleted comment. Even though I did find the "solved" edit summary amusing, and considered leaving it at that, I can't support deletion of good faith talk page comment. Disagreement is fine, deletion is not. Wotnow (talk) 10:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

On the news refence volume on your trend seach below the seach volume, Google trends, Deepwater horizon seems to blow everyone away. Titles shouldn't be based on search volume, redirects will get people here regardless.Aalox (talk) 12:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Point noted with thanks. Your reply caused me to check the comment which I previously attributed to you, and to realise it was in fact attributable to Popsup (talk) at 16:51, 2 May 2010 (UTC). I have corrected the record accordingly. Regards Wotnow (talk) 23:46, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support renaming of Deepwater Horizon drilling rig explosion → Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill, particularly given that this is shaping up to be the worst industrial accident since Chernobyl (and no one calls that "the Ukrainian disaster"). It's good metonymy, it covers the whole megillah, and generally speaking the more specific the nomenclature, the better. Other oil rig disasters are referred to by the names of the rigs involved. kencf0618 (talk) 00:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Urgent need to insert section on Failure of U.S. regulators to require acoustic remote shutdown devices

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704423504575212031417936798.html

Suggest urgent alteration of Wiki page on Deepwater explosion to include fact that US regulators were persuaded by the oil industry to not require the use of remotely activated acoustic shut down devices. These devices have been mandatory in Norway and Brazil for over a decade. These devices only cost $500k. They have prevented disasters like Deepwater inthe past. For $500k, a whole seafood industry would have been saved, new children and marriages culminated - sealife would have survived - 11 lives and families would not have been needlessly lost.

This wouldn't have worked - given that they can't close the BOP hydraulically with ROVs how on earth do you suggest they could close it remotely.

I have added that info, though perhaps someone else could improve it. We really do need to split this article! Gandydancer (talk) 00:07, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

You are right regarding that they cant even close the well head with ROVs. I made an edit that basically removed most of that text, and replaced it with (basically) that there was a dead-man switch that either failed or wasn't activated. Bringing the aspect of the oil industry purportedly trying to persuade regulators to not require an acoustic shut down device seems to be politically charged IMO. --Ericnewton76 (talk) 13:14, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I have edited this paragraph for accuracy. First, MMS did not say an acoustic device was "essential," it said the use of a backup system for the BOP was an essential component for deepwater drilling. The full quote is included in the NY Times article I cited [4] as well as the WSJ article already cited; the misleading language came from the HuffPo opinion piece, which is one reason I deleted that cite (aside from the fact that it is an opinion piece). Second, it was the independent report commissioned by MMS, not just the drilling companies, that questioned the cost and reliability, and the "not recommended because it is costly" language came from the report, not MMS. That's also explained in the NYT piece. Ialso removed the refernce to regulations being considered in 2001 to avoid confusion, since - for instance - the report was not issued until 2003.--EECEE (talk) 23:36, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Costs vs. benefits

I'm having some trouble trying to find a report about how much the Macondo Prospect was actually sold for. I know it was leased at MMS Lease Sale #206 in March 2008 for five years, originally 100% to BP. [5] One blogger (apparently the only one) was asking whether there were any royalties being paid on the spilled oil.[6] But first I'd like to know what royalties (if any) would be paid on the oil if the drilling had gone normally. Is someone here familiar with how to find this information? Wnt (talk) 21:16, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

One can speculate, but seriously the costs of cleanup and repair will hurt all parties involved in this incident to the tune of several hundred billion dollars combined. This is a "Big F**in Deal". --Ericnewton76 (talk) 13:16, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

That is wholly unsourced and a vast overestimate. See [7]. Kittybrewster ☎ 15:44, 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)

Sources for maps and oil slick forecasts

Sources for maps and oil slick forecasts are available here (US federal government, NOAA), here (State of Louisiana), and here Google. The Federal sources would certainly meet Wikipedia's image license requirements; don't know about LA or Google. All are quite interesting, and some would make for useful graphic illustrations for the article. Cheers. N2e (talk) 03:01, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

North Korea torpedoed the oil rig ?

Propriety of linking to controversial site is disputed. GaussianCopula (talk) 09:30, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I found an interesting article which implicates North Korea in this matter - it might have torpedoed the oil rig, which was produced by the South Korean company Hyundai Heavy Industries. A North Korean cargo ship - the Dai Hong Dan - was within 200km of the oil rig when the explosions took place and could have launched a small submarine to that effect. I will paste the article with the link for everyone to read - I guess this constitutes fair use for scientific purposes. http://www.eutimes.net/2010/05/us-orders-blackout-over-north-korean-torpedoing-of-gulf-of-mexico-oil-rig/ -- Alexey Topol (talk) 00:17, 1 May 2010 (UTC) The same article appeared here, in the EU Times. However it's possible that this is some kind of joke or hoax, or false information. But you never know. ~AH1(TCU) 00:34, 1 May 2010 (UTC) When a real news source reports this, we can reconsider. Right now, no. Grsz11 02:08, 1 May 2010 (UTC) Agree. Paranoidal fantasies have no place in Wikipedia (well, not as sources ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 04:31, 1 May 2010 (UTC) A real news source will not report it since the US gov. has issued a gag order on the matter. Also note that Obama sent SWAT teams to all oil rigs after the explosion occured - which means he wants to prevent further attacks. -- Alexey Topol (talk) 11:06, 1 May 2010 (UTC) Typical conspiracy argument - "if they are not suppressing it, why don't we hear from it?" The US government cannot issue "gag orders" as per the first amendment, and if they could, why would they work on Bild or The Times or Le Monde or even Pravda? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:56, 1 May 2010 (UTC) Must we feed this troll? Can somebody close this like I did before? Grsz11 21:02, 1 May 2010 (UTC) i don't know if the kremlin circulated the report, and i have seen no verification that the northern fleet produced such a report, but an admirality is rather common to use as a source for events on sea in wikipedia, and a similar usian report about say the battle of midway would actually be considered weighty.80.57.43.99 (talk) 11:19, 1 May 2010 (UTC) I don't know about linking stuff from EU Times here. I had never heard of them but I did a quick google search after I saw their web page and their strangely divided sections: Sport, Politics, Society, European Pride?, ... etc sounded odd for a news aggregator. Anyways this article is from mediamatters [8] and this one is from Southern Poverty Law Center [9] regarding the site. I will not remove the link but I thought it was important to bring it to the forefront that this site is considered by some as far right extremist. GaussianCopula (talk) 09:30, 3 May 2010 (UTC) Take the conspiracy theories elsewhere, please. If you have any doubt, listen to the archive of the Mark Levin Show from Friday, April 30, 2010, available as a free MP3 download from the "Audio" page at http://www.marklevinshow.com/, beginning at approximately 49 minutes in. It includes a first-person report from a survivor of the disaster, speaking under the pseudonym "James".—QuicksilverT @ 16:36, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Request for substantiation of a statement

What is the source of the statement, "At the time of the spill, President Barack Obama declared the coastline of Louisiana and Mississippi an emergency and sent more than 1,000 National Guard personnel to assist in the cleanup operation." The article correctly states that the governor declared a state of emergency on April 29th, and correctly sites the source in that instance. I have yet to find an on-line source that establishes when Obama declared a state of emergency, but I had heard that it was on or about April 28th before Obama responded to this crisis. Those more politically savvy than I probably know where to find the official government-issued document that would put this to rest. Since there was so much flack over Bush's response time for Hurricane Katrina (about four days, wasn't it?), this is a piece of data that should be carefully researched and reported, I'd say. If the quoted statement cannot be substantiated, I suggest it be promptly corrected or deleted. Thanks, in advance, for addressing this. P.S. - I hope I have input this correctly, as I have nearly no experience in making posts in Wikipedia. Charlie917 (talk) 03:44, 3 May 2010 (UTC) Charlie

We'll see if we can get some true media coverage on Obama's Katrina. Since the media have been fawning over Obama since his announcement of candidacy, this question isn't even being asked at present, whereas Bush's fly over was widely reported in insensitive terms. --Ericnewton76 (talk) 13:19, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Here's a rundown of the situation from the New York Times.[10]

• Within hours of the explosion April 20 the Coast guard sent three cutters, four helicopters, and a plane to the scene for rescue efforts. Admiral Thad E. Allen said that their response would have been no different had they known about the leak.
• April 22 there was some oil on the surface that Rear Adm. Mary E. Landry (Coast Guard) said seemed to be residual oil from the rig itself.
• April 23 "officials" said that the blowout preventer had functioned properly and no oil appeared to be leaking.
• On the night of April 28 "it was disclosed" that oil was leaking at 5,000 barrels a day, five times more than previously believed (and up to five times less than the rate of leakage now).
• April 29 (R) the Department of Homeland security called it a "spill of national significance" Janet Napolitano called for BP to increase their mobilization.

Oddly, the New York Times says in its headline that the "U.S. Missed Chances to Act", but I don't see from the article what they are saying those chances were. They say imply that the government was too willing to trust BP, but also indicate that the current situation is that the government simply does not have the equipment on hand to do the cleanup as well on its own.

I should also note that there is a huge difference in how the "delay" is being counted here. You're measuring Bush's delay from when the levees broke and the homes were flooded - but you're measuring Obama's delay from when the slick first started oozing out a mile beneath the ocean's surface. Wnt (talk) 20:11, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Obama's Katrina

People are going to come to this article to see if there is anything to U.S. conservative's claims that President Obama did not respond to this disaster in a timely fashion. I don't know if there is anything to the claim or not, however, this would be a useful addition to the article—assuming it were done in an NPOV manner. The new section could be titled "U.S. political controversy," or something similar. It shouldn't be hard to find sources on this topic. Airborne84 (talk) 00:07, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I think anyone searching for answers to that question will find them in the parts of the article that describe the federal response. --EECEE (talk) 00:18, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think they will easily do so. There is no section called "U.S. federal response." So, people have to sort through the article to pull out bits of information. However, I suggest that people visiting this article may be interested in President Obama's actions IRT this event. Not just the "federal government." I listen to talk radio on the left and right (this story is still central). Conservatives charge that, although the U.S. federal government has responded, President Obama has not—and should not get credit for what the government (for example the Coast Guard) does anyway—without explicit orders. I'm not saying these charges are right or wrong. What I'm saying is, people are going to come here to find out about those charges specifically. Truthfully, this topic could probably merit its own article. However, I'd say it merits its own section in this article. People that visit would see it in the table of contents and be able to navigate there to answer their questions. Normally, I'd do it myself intead of just suggesting. I'm strapped for time now though. Just a suggestion. Airborne84 (talk) 15:07, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

People come to Wikipedia articles for well-sourced information so they can draw their own conclusions. If this article were edited to address every issue brought up by talk radio hosts it would be six times as long as it is. --EECEE (talk) 15:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Are other countries going to help?

This is an environmental disaster, shouldn't they want to help? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.172.184.181 (talk) 04:24, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Name suggestion

How about "Deepwater Horizon oil rig failure and leak" or some hopefully not-too-wordy combination; this would hopefully appease both sides, or perhaps improve the situation. Both events are linked, obviously, and should both receive recognition both as the the terrible events they are as well as their cause-and-effect relationship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.10.18.240 (talk) 22:18, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

"Gallon" Units 'US' or 'Imperial'

Are the gallon quantities in the article US gallons? There are now only 3 'litres' mentioned (litres/second) in the Dealing with the spill section. I intend putting some Gallon to Litre conversions into the article (as per Manual of Style-Units of measurement). I am assuming that they are US Gallons, not Imperial Gallons. Please say if I am mistaken. Thanks! --220.101.28.25 (talk) 04:10, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I have noticed this too. I am absolutely sure they are US gallons, as due to SB people forget to note it. I have previously inserted some key liter figures, as per MOS, and done the conversions from US gallons. Exxon Valdez article at least talks about US gallons. Now one question is, should the primary unit be litre or US gallon. I am okay with it being US gallon, with the universal metric units noted in parenthesis, as this incident is primarly the concern of the North American anglophones. --hydrox (talk) 14:44, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I've just read this article for the first time and I must say that I am thoroughly confused. The article uses three units: gallons, liters, and barrels. In many cases, quantities are given in one unit with another in parentheses, but it's not consistent at all. I agree that the primary unit should be US gallon, with the universal metric unit in parenthesis. The question is what to do with barrels. Since quantities in barrel units are coming from citations, it seems best to put both gallon and liter quantities in parentheses whenever barrels are used. --Bokowski (talk) 23:43, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I have been adding convert templates to as many oil quanities as possible. if someone wants to go through the document and add liters as a second unit of measure it should much easier to do so now. US Gal and barrels are clearly the primary units of measure, due to the industry standards (bbl) and location of the spill (USGal). In the very least those two should appear on all figures.--Labattblueboy (talk) 14:45, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Barrels doesn't make sense to me. I realize the "barrel" is unit used for trading oil (in the US anyway), and media has been using both barrels and gallons to report the spill. But I don't see why the unit is relevant to the size of an oil spill. I mean, unless you're trying to work out how much the spilt oil is worth, what use is barrels except to convert into a more standard measure? Do engineers ever do calculations in barrels? Why limit yourself to comparing oil only with oil? Why not use a standard measure so it can be compared with any liquid? It's kinda obvious to me. But then using litres is obvious to me too. But even old fashioned US gallons make so much more sense than barrels as to make barrels irrelevant. —Pengo 11:28, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Isn't it obvious? It happened in U.S. waters and is primarily being reported by U.S. news sources. It's U.S. gallons.—Quicksilver^{T @} 16:36, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Contradictory information

The article states "According to a Transocean spokesperson, at the time of the explosion the rig was drilling but was not in production.[15] Production casing was being run and cemented at the time of the accident." However, a rig cannot drill and run casing at the same time; it can do only one or the other. It would make a big difference in the determination of the cause of the explosion, since blowouts usually happen during drilling. Geonerd50 (talk) 20:34, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Blowouts often happen during drilling, but not this time. The rig was definitely not drilling when this happened. Drilling was complete, and the casing had been set and cemented. The next step was going to be, test the casing and cementing job. I'm not involved in that part of the industry, so this is speculation: Maybe the rig was still being charged to BP at the full "day rate". This covers drilling and other times when all of the equipment on the rig must be operable. There may also be another lower rate that is charged after the well has been "completed", and has entered production, when some of the equipment is no longer needed. Even if it's exactly what the spokesman said, this statement makes no sense in this context and should be examined.Marzolian (talk) 23:06, 7 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. [11] 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)

Approaches to stopping the oil leak

If unable to close the blow out preventer (BOP) valves on the well head 5000 feet below the surface of the water using the ROV two other options remain to secure the source. The first and fastest is to place a dome over the well head capturing the oil and piping it to the surface to a storage vessel, this operation will take some time as the dome will have to be fabricated. The next option would be to bring in another drilling rig and either re-drill the well straight down, (as done in Australia), or cross drill from a little ways away and tap into the original borehole. Once the second drilling operation reaches the original borehole the operators could then pump drilling mud into the well to stop the flow of oil.

Alternatively, large amounts of concrete that hardens on exposure to sea water could be dropped over the hole, or a shaped charge on the sea floor could be used to cover the hole with debris from the sea floor. Both these methods would most likely permanently disable or destroy the facility and so would only be used as a last resort.

Another approach to sealing the oil pipe is to crimp the pipe between two vertical plates. The dimensions and material used for the riser suggest that this can be accomplished by applying a force of the order of 20 million pounds to the plates. This procedure can be verified with any commercial Finite Element Analysis program. Pedrovmarcal (talk) 10:43, 10 May 2010 (UTC)pedrovmarcal 5-10-10

PTTEP Australasia (November 3, 2009). "PTTEP Australasia Timor Sea Operations – Incident Information #87". Press release. Archived from the original on November 5, 2009. http://www.webcitation.org/5l3MMzCW3. Retrieved November 5, 2009.

"West Atlas oil leak stopped". ABC News. November 3, 2009. Archived from the original on November 5, 2009. http://www.webcitation.org/5l3R9hPbY. Retrieved November 5, 2009.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.45.18.13 (talk) 16:12, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

List of oil spills

This list should be made a changeable chart, by date, size of spill, alphabetical order, depending on the viewer's need, but I don't know how to do it, despite Help:Table#Sorting and Help:Sorting. Anyone? --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 02:09, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

>>> I second this suggestion (especially the inclusion of DATE, and probably size of spill). Didn't know the name of the current spill, and without a date to go on, I had to click on every one before I found the right one. I would list them chronologically, rather than alphabetically, which seems logical for a listing of events (so things can be found in some historical context). - RT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.76.188.20 (talk) 16:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

>>>Also, there's an erroneous statement that quotes someone as saying this may be the 'biggest spill in history.' It should read 'biggest spill in history that directly impacts the continental U.S.,' since the Gulf War I spill, which was the result of armed conflict between the US and Iraq, is the biggest spill in history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.91.138.74 (talk) 18:57, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

dead animals

"where dead animals, including a sea turtle, were found." what is the source for this? the source shows only the picture of the turtle, not other animals Please provide a source --Bogdanno (talk) 07:23, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Note: One of the CBS network news correspondents reported a couple of days ago that a number of dead sea turtles had been examined by govt. scientists and were found not to have died from the oil, and further that there were suspicions that some Gulf Coast shrimpers had been responsible, presumably by altering their nets or TEDs in order to increase their haul of shrimp before the oil slick reached their area. No doubt this has been dealt with in print somewhere as well. Cgingold (talk) 12:09, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I found these sources: http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/05/shrimpers-not-oil-a-dead-turtle-inquiry/ http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/gulf-mexico-oil-spill-turtles-dying-oil/story?id=10565355b However, the ABC source suggests the turtles were caught after oil spill while NYTimes quotes somebody saying it was before oil spill--Bogdanno (talk) 16:18, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Organization of "Oil Spill" section

I undid the combination of sections made by TheFlyer at 03:06, 1 May 2010 for numerous reasons.

(1) The stated reason for the combining, "chronology management," was not accomplished by the deletion of a separate section on the volume and extent on the spill, because it zigzagged from April 30 back to the beginning of the cleanup efforts.

(2) The facts on the spill volume/extent are not part of the "cleanup efforts" so the combination of sections defeats the purpose of outline form. The chronology is less important than being able to find the information on a specified aspect of the spill; someone looking to find out how much oil was spilling, and how the estimates changed, would not naturally look in a "cleanup" section; description of the problem is separate, and should come before, narrative on solutions

(3) The volume and extent of the spill will likely continue to grow as an independent subsection

(4) "Cleanup efforts" will also likely continue to grow as an independent subsection

Popsup (talk) 09:36, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with the revert. It seemed to me that there was redundancy across different sections. I feel the revert was done well, pretty much eliminated duplication, and didn't lose any of the content. Thank you for explaining why you made your edit. Theflyer (talk) 03:46, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

the first line of such section is "in February 2009, BP filed a 52-page exploration and environmental impact plan with the federal Minerals Management Service for the Deepwater Horizon well." that is incorrect and obscures what the 'plan' was actually about. there is no "Deepwater Horizon well " there is a deepwater horizon exploration 'drill' in the 'macondo concession'. However since in the alinea right over it it is mentioned this rig was involved in numerous accidents, it is not obvious to me wether the filed documents consider the rig's dfunctioning, or this exploration drill.(wich you might want to call the macondo well or macondo1 (i think it is the first)80.57.43.99 (talk) 17:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Added NPOV...

...Because New Title is a Deceptive Smoke Screen (No one will be able to find this Title which is probably Intentional.)

Deepwater Horizon oil spill will not be recognized by anyone. Probably a PR ploy. Wikipedia is supposed to be an independent online encyclopedia and not a company public relations tool.

Sean7phil (talk) 16:50, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

We have already established consensus on the article title. Please see the discussions already on this talk page. Wikipedia takes WP:NPOV and WP:CONSENSUS very seriously. Please observe that consensus. --N419BH (talk) 16:55, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

There's a redirect from BP Oil Spill. Actually, it sounds like Sean is the one who's pushing a point-of-view, i.e. to beat up on BP. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the agenda seems to be to beat up on BP. As I said above: None of the largest oil spills have the word "disaster" in their article titles, and they're all much bigger than this one. An edit comment speculated that BP has its PR minions trying to downplay the incident. That could go both ways. We could just as easily imagine that OPEC, or radical environmentalists, or the leftist supporters of Hugo Chavez and Venezuala's oil interests, are trying to up-play the incident in order to limit oil exploration to non-U.S. sources.

True NPOV would mean that the other articles would be similar to this one, especially since those spills were all much larger. -- Randy2063 (talk) 17:25, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Didn't Limbaugh suggest that radical environmentalists might have been behind it? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:09, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I think so. There are a couple websites who claim North Korea sabotaged the rig as well. --N419BH (talk) 19:12, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

No, he didn't. This came up elsewhere a few days ago. There was a transcript on his website that says he didn't. -- Randy2063 (talk) 16:12, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

New article in Spanish

At the present time, there is no link to a Spanish-language version of this article. Translators may be interested in this report in Spanish.

• Deepwater Horizon: van 20 días de desastre ambiental — bionero.org | IDEAS, DISCUSION Y CULTURA ECOLOGICA DESDE MEXICO

-- Wavelength (talk) 01:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

ADMIN and EDITOR ALERT: Admins and Editors please be aware that BP Public Relations people may try to spin (manipulate the editing) of This Article to take the Focus Away from BP

One example is the changing of the article Title to "Horizons Oil Spill" which most people would not recognize as the current Gulf of Mexico Oil Disaster. This could well be an attempt to bury this article.

Also traditionally the name of the responsible oil company is included in the disaster.

For example, the "Exxon Valdez Oil Disaster" in Alaska has "Exxon" in it because Exxon was the responsible company (the company responsible for the disaster). Yet the title of this article has been changed to the "Horizons oil spill" which may well be an attempt to take the focus off of BP, which has been designated by the US Government as the responsible company. The name BP, the responsible company, should be a part of the name of the disaster, as is traditionally done. Also-- this is an 'Oil Disaster' and not an 'Oil spill' as the article deceptively is now called.

ADMINS and EDITORS PLEASE TAKE NOTE: Oil companies have highly-paid Public Relations Teams that watch things like Wikipedia and will work aggressively to 'spin' (manipulate or game) articles like this to hide or deflect attention away from any negative publicity for their company.

ADMINS and EDITORS-- PLEASE BE AWARE THAT THIS ARTICLE IS AT HIGH RISK FOR BEING MANIPULATED BY BP AND IT'S SUBCONTRACTORS

Sean7phil (talk) 16:33, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

We have already established consensus on the article title. Please see the discussions already on this talk page. Wikipedia takes WP:NPOV and WP:CONSENSUS very seriously. Please observe that consensus. --N419BH (talk) 16:55, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually "Exxon Valdez" was the official name of the tanker. Casey (talk) 03:06, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Although I think Sean7phil's exaggerating a little, I do agree that this article should contain BP in its title. I read the section in which consensus about the naming was achieved, and it is not clear from that discussion that there was an agreement about excluding or including BP in the title. A lot of the discussion was focused on other things, such as whether it should be called a "spill" or a "disaster" and whether the Gulf of Mexico should be mentioned. N419BH, I don't understand why a previous consensus on a matter that is continuously evolving should be used to shut down a discussion about renaming an important article. Could you please explain? --Emptytalk (talk) 11:44, 12 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emptytalk (talk • contribs) 11:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

That's more than "a little".

Sure, it's worth looking at, but he's asking for yet another double-standard.

There seems to be enormous interest in oil spills when a profit-making corporation is responsible, and it is oddly excused by the critics when it's a national oil company.

If this one is retitled to include the oil company in the name then it must be done for all of the oil spills here and here. Do that, and it'll be more NPOV. Fail to do that, and it'll be POV.

BTW: I'm no fan of BP either. I've despised their "Beyond Petroleum" TV commercials that pander to the naive idea that we can live with alternatives to oil while they obviously don't believe it themselves. Put the names in all the other titles, and I'll be the first to want it here.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 18:29, 12 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.[12][13]
(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)

Edit request from 209.91.43.246, 13 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

nitpick: there is no US Department of Defence. It's the Department of Defense.

209.91.43.246 (talk) 21:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done. Thank you for your contribution to Wikipedia. Creating an account at Wikipedia, while not required, is an affair of less than five minutes and comes with many benefits, including the ability to edit semiprotected pages. Intelligentsium 23:11, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Unable to cut the pipe?

There seem to be too many leaks. Should the ROV should be able to cut the pipe so there is just one welhead to work on.

Is the well base leaking? Or is it all pipes above the valve? It seems a simple job to plug the pipe if it was cut clean and made a usable mechanical surface. But all the sketches indicate that it is still a tangled mess. How hard is it to cut the pipe?

Perhaps there is a better photo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.94.233.226 (talk) 01:10, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Under summary procedures English wikipedia removed the article from the front page in a couple of days

It shows clearly the bias; when other articles embarrass other nations they stay for weaks. If they embarass the British or Americans, no, they have to be removed in 1. --Leladax (talk) 02:56, 14 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)

APPEAL TO ADMINS & JOURNALISTS

Please investigate whether parties involved in changing the title of this article to an obscure name are being paid by BP or it's subcontractors to manipulate this article.

Sean7phil (talk) 17:29, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

The only connection I have to BP is that I occasionally put their gas in my car (though not lately, since their price jumped). You are way overreacting. The redirects still exist. Anyone who starts their search with "BP" will find it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:55, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, fair enough-- But you are just one person here-- A number of people were involved in turning the article title into an obscure, hard-to-search title, free of any association with B.P. or it's subcontractor, Transocean. It's still very suspicious that the article title would be spun like that. I'd like to know if anyone involved with that is on the BP payroll.

Sean7phil (talk) 18:16, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

No one who searches under "Gulf Oil Disaster" will find it (directly) anymore. The article has been conveniently finessed out of direct searches.

Perhaps the reason for this article not appearing in searches isn't a Wikipedi problem. Perhaps BP has influenced the major search engines. Perhaps Google has been corrupted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.129.23.146 (talk) 00:46, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Sean7phil (talk) 18:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

That's true as the Gulf Oil Disaster may also mean the Gulf War oil spill. Probably needs some disambiguation pages for the Gulf. Beagel (talk) 18:47, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with that one. Feel free to create the disambiguation page. --N419BH (talk) 18:56, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

A disambig page might be worthwhile. That kind of search could easily mean the Gulf War oil spill or the Ixtoc I oil spill (which was also in the Gulf of Mexico). There are also others that happened in the Persian Gulf or Gulf of Oman.

I'll grant that this one is more important, but that's only because it's happening in or near U.S. waters, and Americans are more likely to care about it. But Wikipedia isn't supposed to be America-centric.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 18:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Sean, what did you mean here[14] about "intercepting your posts"? If you're getting an edit conflict, it means someone else has posted between the time you opened and edit session and hit "save". Happens to me several times a day. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

He Sean7phil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to have moved on to other things now. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:42, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Need improved explanation of why the containment dome failed

The news media in general did a poor job of explaining why the 125-ton containment dome failed, and Wikipedia hasn't done much better. The article says, BP engineers are developing two possible options to control or stop the oil spill. The first and fastest is to place a subsea oil recovery system over the well head. This involves placing a 125-tonne (280,000 lb) dome over the largest of the well leaks and piping it to a storage vessel on the surface.[85] This option could collect as much as 85% of the leaking oil but is previously untested at such depths.[85] BP deployed the system on May 7-8, when it failed due to buildup of frozen methane hydrate crystals at the top of the dome. This buildup led to excess buoyancy and to clogging of the opening at the top of the dome where the riser was to be connected.

• A clogged opening could explain why BP won't be able to extract oil out of the dome -- but it doesn't explain why the dome failed to contain the oil. (Hydrate crystals would not cause oil to pass right through the concrete walls of the dome.)
• A buildup of natural gas, leading to excess buoyancy, might explain why the dome failed -- if the excess buoyancy caused the dome to lift right off of the sea floor. If that's the case, the article should say so explicitly. 71.219.240.123 (talk) 14:50, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Jphoeft, 14 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Hello. I'm the social media coordinator for Unified Command and would like to make a change to the text that is displayed for our link. I would also like to make changes, if possible, to other parts of the article.

Please change the link from "U.S. Government/BP/Transocean unified command site on the "Gulf of Mexico-Transocean Drilling Incident" to "Unified Area Command, Deepwater Horizon Response - Official Government Site"

Jphoeft (talk) 21:34, 14 May 2010 (UTC)LCDR James R. Hoeft, (email address removed  Chzz  ►  00:58, 15 May 2010 (UTC))

Why? 75.85.170.208 (talk) 23:24, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, why? If this is more official, please provide a link stating so. —fetch·comms 00:49, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Article Focus

I've become a bit concerned about the focus of the article, particularly in the Consequences section. While the wide range of fall out is very important, I think it should be summarized here, with an ability to investigate it further in other articles. I fear that this section could become a day by day blow of the changes to off-shore drilling policy, instead of the focus being on the spill and it's direct effect. I've added main article links to United States offshore drilling debate and Atlantis Oil Field with the hopes of encouraging future major updates into those articles. I would like to see the fat in the sections trimmed down some into a summery, with the fat moved into the main articles. I leave that to other editors to see what they think should go or stay.--Aalox (talk) 01:35, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Was there a change to the talk page / history page ?

(From the Archive)

Approaches to stopping the oil leak

If unable to close the blow out preventer (BOP) valves on the well head 5000 feet below the surface of the water using the ROV two other options remain to secure the source. The first and fastest is to place a dome over the well head capturing the oil and piping it to the surface to a storage vessel, this operation will take some time as the dome will have to be fabricated. The next option would be to bring in another drilling rig and either re-drill the well straight down, (as done in Australia), or cross drill from a little ways away and tap into the original borehole. Once the second drilling operation reaches the original borehole the operators could then pump drilling mud into the well to stop the flow of oil.

Alternatively, large amounts of concrete that hardens on exposure to sea water could be dropped over the hole, or a shaped charge on the sea floor could be used to cover the hole with debris from the sea floor. Both these methods would most likely permanently disable or destroy the facility and so would only be used as a last resort.

Another approach to sealing the oil pipe is to crimp the pipe between two vertical plates. The dimensions and material used for the riser suggest that this can be accomplished by applying a force of the order of 20 million pounds to the plates. This procedure can be verified with any commercial Finite Element Analysis program. Pedrovmarcal (talk) 10:43, 10 May 2010 (UTC)pedrovmarcal 5-10-10

PTTEP Australasia (November 3, 2009). "PTTEP Australasia Timor Sea Operations – Incident Information #87". Press release. Archived from the original on November 5, 2009. http://www.webcitation.org/5l3MMzCW3. Retrieved November 5, 2009.

"West Atlas oil leak stopped". ABC News. November 3, 2009. Archived from the original on November 5, 2009. http://www.webcitation.org/5l3R9hPbY. Retrieved November 5, 2009.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.45.18.13 (talk) 16:12, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

New page title needed (Should Have The Word "Disaster" in It) (Some BP PR Person Likely Cooked up the "Horizons" Title to Bury the Article

Article was moved from Deepwater Horizon drilling rig explosion to Deepwater Horizon oil spill. If you would like to propose moving it again, please start a new section. - Aalox (Say Hello • My Work) 20:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Why are the words "Oil Spill" not in the title or first few words instead of the end of the first sentence of the story?? That makes no sense at all. The public would be better served and this article could be more readily found by readers if this story was called Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill, which is comparable to the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill, the other oil spill that this new spill is being compared to. Why are we making this page so non-user friendly which such a title?Myk60640 (talk) 14:13, 30 April 2010 (UTC) I'll second that. It seems clear this incident will go down in history for the oil spill the explosion created, and not the explosion itself. Over on the merge discussion at Talk:Deepwater_Horizon#Merge_discussion, I put forth the title idea of changing it to Deepwater Horizon blowout and oil spill or Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill. Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill could work too. Just brain stormin' Aalox (talk) 16:29, 30 April 2010 (UTC) Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill is OK--DAI (Δ) 19:27, 30 April 2010 (UTC) Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill describes the situation well. //Don K. (talk) 05:47, 1 May 2010 (UTC) Not well enough to be memorable. Most of us had never heard of Deepwater Horizon before this and its not an easy title to remember. The well known characteristics of this event are Gulf of Mexico, BP and 2010. That's what the title should contain. HiLo48 (talk) 06:55, 1 May 2010 (UTC) I bet no one heard of the Exxon Valdez before the spill either. Aalox (talk) 00:00, 2 May 2010 (UTC) I propose that we change the main title to BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill. The name of the company should be included in the title, as it was for the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill. This title would contain all the necessary information and it is both more precise and more consistent (when compared to the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill title). I also don't think that it is neutral to exclude the name of the company that caused the spill and instead solely refer to the name of the oil platform. --Emptytalk (talk) 00:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC) Oppose "Exxon Valdez" was the name of the ship. "Deepwater Horizon" is the name of the rig. The titles are already congruent as they both follow the format "(Name of vessel) oil spill". It is true that "Exxon Valdez" was the name of the ship, but "Exxon" is also the name of the company. The title of the oil spill thus included the name of the company in the case of the "Exxon Valdez" oil spill. If the tanker in the Exxon oil spill had not included the company as part of its name, the oil spill might have been called differently. Because the tanker was called "Exxon Valdez" it provided a convenient way to include both the responsible corporate entity and the actual vessel at once . It would therefore be congruent to call it the "BP Deepwater Horizon" spill now. --Emptytalk (talk) 00:41, 10 May 2010 (UTC) (The title Should Have The Word "Disaster" in It) Nobody, and I mean nobody is going to do a search for the "Horizon oil spill". I was unsure how to find this article at all. I don't think we should name it this, but the only way I could find it on Google was to search: 2010 gulf oil spill wikipedia Peaceoutside (talk) 21:29, 11 May 2010 (UTC) You can be almost 100% certain that some creepy BP Public Relations person cooked up that title to bury the article. 75.166.179.110 (talk) 16:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC) 75.166.179.110 (talk) 16:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC) Oppose the renaming. This is nonsense. None of the largest oil spills have the word "disaster" in their article titles, and they're all much bigger than this one. An edit comment speculated that BP has its PR minions trying to downplay the incident. That could go both ways. We could just as easily imagine that OPEC, or radical environmentalists, or the leftist supporters of Hugo Chavez and Venezuala's oil interests, are trying to up-play the incident in order to limit oil exploration to non-U.S. sources. -- Randy2063 (talk) 16:39, 10 May 2010 (UTC) There's already a redirect page for BP Oil Spill. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC) The only way I found the article was by googling the words "gulf of mexico oil rig disaster" and looking for the wikipedia url in the search results, which was the third listing and I think thats pretty good. I vote that a name change is opposed for the meantime, at least until the "continuing uncapped oil disaster" is capped, also I suggest the article requires further detail and I will attempt to add a new section in the discussions page relating to this. -- Eco impact 10:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Rename it NOW please

Article was moved from Deepwater Horizon drilling rig explosion to Deepwater Horizon oil spill. If you would like to propose moving it again, please start a new section. - Aalox (Say Hello • My Work) 20:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
FFS what is with all these pages and pages of debate and not one person actually renaming this article to something relevant? It's just sad now. No matter how you google any combinations of Gulf of Mexico Oil spill, BP oil spill, 2010 oil spill or whatever relevant term you will NEVER find this article. The only reason I found it was through a redirect via the oil spill page. How pathetic is that? Stop the useless debating and garbage bureaucracy and change the title to something relevant NOW so people can ACTUALLY FIND THIS ARTICLE. Wikipedia is turning into the federal government ver fast...128.12.101.57 (talk) 18:43, 2 May 2010 (UTC) Absolutely agreed. Get it renamed to "Deepwater Horizon oil spill" so that this Wikipedia article might actually be found in organic search for most likely search term. As for Wikipedia naming style, note that of some 13 named oil spills, 12 articles are named in style: "Name oil spill" -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Oil_spills_in_the_United_States Let's get it done already! --Paulscrawl (talk) 19:11, 2 May 2010 (UTC) As I explain in my last comments in the "rename and move" discussion above, "Deepwater Horizon" is not the most likely search term. But "oil spill" is very important. I think the explosion and fire belong with the article on the rig, and that the spill should be split off, and then the remainder merged, ultimately leaving two articles. The reason I have not done the first part is because that is a major move and I wanted to hear from the article's main early contributors as well as others' opinions about the name of the new article. In the meantime I have set up re-directs from "BP oil spill" to this article.Popsup (talk) 20:56, 2 May 2010 (UTC) I support TWO articles: one, on the rig itself and its demise, whatever it be named in the popular mind, not unlike the biography of the Titanic, and another, separate, article on the oil spill itself, as the latter is surely of far greater long-term interest and great consequence. Branding each article with BP would quickly obsolete both articles, as BP's leaks are surely not yet complete --- the name of the rig is unique and perfectly adequate for these separate rhetorical needs.. --Paulscrawl (talk) 05:36, 3 May 2010 (UTC) Agree with Paul Scrawl--excellent idea. 98.82.23.93 (talk) 20:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC) Wikipedia has "redirects". You type in whatever name you thought to look it up under, and when it comes up as no article found, you say "start a new article" and put in "#REDIRECT Deepwater Horizon drilling rig explosion" (minus the quotes) as the only text. Maybe the article should be divided, renamed, etc., but if it goes by the usual schedule the relief well will be finished before that argument is over... Wnt (talk) 21:03, 2 May 2010 (UTC) Thanks, I'm aware of the basic Wikipedia redirect mechanics, but thought Google search engine mechanics far likely more robust. Why not simply name things what people are looking for? As of May 2, 2010: 1,520,000 for "Deepwater Horizon oil spill" vs. 261,000 for "Deepwater Horizon drilling rig explosion"? Granted, 11,100,000 for "BP oil spill", but that is hardly unique, alas. --Paulscrawl (talk) 05:57, 3 May 2010 (UTC) I urge to keep the name of the company -- BP -- in the headline / title since it is the only most logical way public at large is able to recognize article. I also suspect that BP and other companies involved will try to alter the article by multiple writes/redaction or legal action. Additionally, please create a table for number of parties other than BP (e.g Transocean, Haliburton) involved. This would set a standard of expectation on corporate responsibility. Is the list of survivors and dead known? Who else were allowed to visit the rig/platform in past six weeks to rule out possible sabotage.--Nymontin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.236.46.146 (talk) 15:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC) Whatever it should be renamed--on which I take no position at present--it should not be renamed "BP ..." anything as that would clearly reflect a non-neutral point of view. At the least, one would have to say the operator/leassee/etc. of the rig is contested, as is made clear by at least this one claim in a reliable source. 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) 17:49, 6 May 2010 (UTC) It would be neutral to call it a BP oil spill because that is the wide consensus of sources. Transocean was a contractor for BP, but anyone tempted to sink their own well into the Macondo Prospect would surely receive strenuous notification that it is BP's oil. When it washes up in the marsh it's still BP's oil. BP oil, BP oil spill, no? Wnt (talk) 19:47, 6 May 2010 (UTC) I agree with Wnt that it is more neutral to call it a BP oil spill due to both the current consensus, as well as due to the fact that it is BP that is trying to clean up the oil and that it is BP that has publicly and explicitly accepted responsibility for the spill and for the resulting damages and costs (see for instance this article in which the BP CEO is quoted saying "it's our responsibility" (see also, for instance, this report). If consensus turns at a later point it could still be renamed. At the moment, however, I do not think that it would be neutral to leave out BP's name from the title. --Emptytalk (talk) 00:27, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Clarify blowout preventer

Pre-spill precautions talks of the lack of a blowout preventer switch, but Activities to stop the oil leak describes just such a preventer. I added a {{clarify}} tag. Is there something missing here? Maybe there are different kinds of preventer, and if so, could someone expand on the differences? -84user (talk) 14:23, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

The blowout preventer (BOP) is a standard piece of equipment located at the wellhead on the ocean floor. It's purpose is to seal the well in case of a blowout. It is typically activated by a switch from the rig. (This is in addition to a "deadman switch" that automatically shears the drill pipe and seals the well when communication is lost with the rig.) An acoustic device is a backup device operated from off the rig - for instance from a lifeboat - that could activate the BOP by means of sonar waves. It is explained in both the WSJ and NYT articles linked at that paragraph. --EECEE (talk) 15:23, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation, it is clearer now. I did not follow the citations because they were at the end of the paragraph. I have reworded and hopefully improved the positioning of the citations. I just watched Eric Pooley discuss this very subject at Bloomberg's YouTube channel here, from 1 minute 48 seconds to 2 minutes 20 seconds. -84user (talk) 16:59, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

The Blowout preventer section describes the basis of the two different types of BOP closures. A deepwater BOP stack will be composed of multiple rams (4 to 6), and one or two annular rams. Deepwater DP rigs will normally have two sets of shear rams for redundancy and to provide two barriers in the event of unplanned loss of vessel position. The BOP unit will have two completely seperate control systems (control pods) (I think this is a mandatory requirement), and a set of hydraulic accumulators to provide local power for a given number of operations/functions of the rams, valves and riser connector. Not all subsea drilling BOPs have a deadmans system. This was popular with a few drilling companies in the 1970-80's, when DP drilling vessel arrived. These systems would automaitcally close the BOP and disconnect the riser in the event of control/power failure. This type of automatic system is not popular with drilling companies as there is the risk of unintentional activation which can lead to many other issues with accessing the well and dropping junk in the well. The final backup system for a subsea BOP is access by ROV which can provide both hydraulic power and manually control the functions. It seems that even this has not been possible with the Deepwater Horizon BOP, so that suggests that there is some level of junk across the BOP rams preventing closure, or that the hydraulic systems have failed unexpectedly (very rare given the levels of redundancy). (andyminicooper (talk) 10:06, 15 May 2010 (UTC))

Editing Closed

Why is editing closed on the oil spill. It is obvious that, like the missing peice of saftey equipment, the dom eplacement was ignoring the frozen sub surface tepmeratures which have apparently clogged the contianment dome. The sorrounding sea water apparently cannot get into the line or the system freezes. Why does this not happen with a typical production well at that depth? Apparently the ground temperature is warmer and able to keep the crude warm and prevent icing. So it looks like a closed dome with a zero pressure valve will be needed to regulate flow and prevent freezing seawater from enterting the flow.

A personal note. It has been obvious for some time that wikipedia is not fufilling it's mission as a public editable service. Numerous incidents of censorship, unfair (and unreasonable) treatment are evidenced at this institution.

Please have the owners stop the unfair use of wikipedia as another corperate weapon for unfair trade and outgrouping. Wikipedia clearly promotes many products and excluds others on as "frends only" basis. This mob behavior is the responsibility of wikipedia as a whole. It is their responsibility to control the natural process of crowd bahavior they create with this system. It is far to easy for inapropriate bahavior to precist when organized and well funded businesses interfere with an otherwise well meaning service. Please restore service. Denial of service is the fastest growing form of crime. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.94.232.31 (talk) 15:50, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

If you have evidence of those charges, present it. As far as "inappropriate behavior" is concerned, that's why it's semi-protected. Use your registered ID and you can modify. Or suggest changes here. Oh, and lose the semi-veiled legal threat. "Denial of service"? There is no constitutional right to edit wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:23, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

--Evidence VAPORIZER Lists only electric vaporizers and ignores the more popular (and patented) Ubie By American Smokeless. Hence unfairly trating that company while shameless promoting [Volcano] with a page. At least a mention of the most popular (and smallest portable) type of vaporizer would seem thoughtful.

Actually I find the article has no edit tab on the page. Why is the oil spill article closed?

To the other point: Some businesses are "banned" and others are "promoted" on wikipedia. That is simply unequal treatment. Equal treatment is a constitutional right. 72.94.233.226 (talk) 00:58, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

• I understand how it seems that some businesses are "promoted" on WP, and that can occur when their products get written about, and people are too distracted to contest articles about them. As you may know, a prominent computer company was caught (years ago) paying people to slant Wikipedia articles to be worded in their favor. Meanwhile, some other company (+products) is written about, but a group of "activist" editors will all start complaining about those articles, and then they'll get deleted, perhaps as a reaction to "mob pressure" against those pages (even though peer pressure is officially to be ignored, often it sways deletions). Most of these outcomes is just a matter of timing: if someone writes about a company, when everyone is focused on other issues, then that article is likely to remain on WP. For example, a company with products related to oil spills could probably get a valid article if mentioned in 2 separate oil spills (if only 1 spill, they would be limited to mention in that single oil-spill article). It is important to beware conflict of interest: no employee of the company is allowed to write about those products, even though ironically, they probably know the most accurate details about the products. However, for writers not in the company, whose products have been used extensively in 2 (or more) major news events, then an article should be allowed, and I encourage people to write about such companies related to this event (plus a 2nd event). Another major factor: some people appear to use Wikipedia to "prove their power against others" and if they focus on an article you've written, and they decide to force the outcome, they might contact buddies to muster force. This is like the "mob behavior" you mentioned (above), and I call Clique-ipedia: it is almost unstoppable to thwart a group, and an administrator might fear them because there are so many who could retaliate later, if sanctioned. At that point, fight fire with fire: join another group who will protect articles you're writing and help out-number the opposition. But remember, many of us do want articles about these technical products that heavily impact such oil-spill events, and a spinoff article from here is always an important topic for this talk-page. In fact, I might add you are quite brilliant to have seen the "mob" problem: I've been here 5 years before I could confirm: you are 100% right to be upset. After so many years, why is it still unfair? ...I think if there were rules in place to "force fairness" then those same people would write "the rules" to ensure how some companies could never get articles. As bad as this seems, articles can still be written if enough people join the effort to resist the others. -Wikid77 (talk) 03:07, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

72.94.232.31/72.94.233.226. I highly recommend you go create an account!. This will allow you to edit the page even when it is edit semi-protected pages once ten edits have been made, and their account is at least four days old. Pages are protected for a few days every now and then when Vandalism becomes too much to control by other means. Check out all the other great reasons to join wikipedia at Wikipedia:Why create an account?. --Aalox (talk) 03:23, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

7 BP executives but only 6 BP employees ?

The article, under the heading "Explosion and fire", says : "Seven BP executives were on board the rig celebrating the project's safety record when the blowout occurred" in the next paragraph, under the heading "Casualties and rescue efforts", it reads: "According to officials, 126 individuals were on board, of whom [...] six were from BP". So there is at least a BP official that is not a BP employee ??? The reference associated with the the '7 BP executive', a news video except, does not mention the number of BP executive, but merely 'a group of..' Shmget (talk) 01:40, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Maybe one was a consultant? An interesting issue, but could probably be resolved by getting a list of names somehow. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:30, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

75 million cap

The article states: "Currently, United States federal law limits BP's liability for non-cleanup costs to $75 million", but the citation tells a much more complicated story about the liability cap, and the sentence as stated in the article may not be true. 66.206.115.136 (talk) 01:56, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Cameron International Link

Someone could add the correct Wikipedia Article to the "Cameron International" link, which would be: Cameron_International_Corporation —Preceding unsigned comment added by Intrr (talk • contribs) 22:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Done. It was automatically redirecting before but now it links directly to the page. Svenna (talk) 19:44, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Coordinates are incorrect

I am not registered in English Wiki but coordinates of Deepwater Horizon are incorrect. They should be: 28°23'8.36"N 88°43'47.49" You can verify it here: http://wikimapia.org/16300357/Deepwater-Horizon-oil-spill-2010 Please update. 85.238.124.248 (talk) 00:41, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Some personal attacks from an IP

Trolling: Editorializing and blanket personal attacks on wikipedians. - Aalox (Say Hello • My Work) 20:11, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Kill this article. Real-time journalism like this is NOT ENCYCLOPEDIC Right. Like I said. You're all non-neutral DOPES! 108.7.15.25 (talk) 03:17, 15 May 2010 (UTC) CASE IN POINT: See discussion edit 11:06, 15 May 2010 Baseball Bugs (talk | contribs) (115,503 bytes) (il garbagio) User:Baseball Bugs has seen fit to summarily and arrogantly REMOVE this section expressing a LEGITIMATE CONCERN about how this article digresses from the purpose of Wikipedia. No discussion. Not even a simple "no you have your facts wrong about WP". JUST SUMMARY REMOVAL with the comment "il garbagio" (i.e."arrogantly"). User:Baseball Bugs you are way out of line. Sure, I called some people dopes. They called for it, but you are worse, you EXEMPLIFY the misplaced power of ever presence. You win because you are merely always there. In WP, the absolute power of ever presence corrupts to the point where you think you can get away with what you did! THIS ARTICLE IS REAL TIME JOURNALISM AND IT IS UNENCYCLOPEDIC. User:Baseball Bugs, you can leave a comment, discuss, and/or correct me. But you should be SANCTIONED for that bullshit you pulled. If you said nothing, and nobody else did either, my comment would have disappeared into oblivion. As it was, somehow you thought YOU AND YOU ALONE were the authority on the matter. 108.7.15.25 (talk) 07:56, 16 May 2010 (UTC) I'll be removing the above nonsense once the IP has been blocked. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:20, 16 May 2010 (UTC) YOU WIN! Like I said, your ever-presence gives you the power to IGNORE, the power to PREVENT third parties from piping in. You succeeded all right! You didn't feel you needed to have a CIVIL discussion rejecting the proposition. That would have worked. Or, you could have left it alone and it might died! As it is, you've demonstrated to the world the POWER of your UTTER ARROGANCE! Here, you presumed that ONLY YOU AND YOU ALONE had anything to say, and you felt you could be so DRACONIAN as to remove the idea without discussion! Where did you get that idea? I see on your pages that you've had to resort to blocking there too! Do you "bring it on" like this often? In all my years editing WP, I've never ever come across behavior like yours. I gave it up partly because a small amount of arrogance is an occupational hazard of spending so much of one's time on WP. Encountering it was a little annoying, but YOU TAKE THE CAKE! WIKIPEDIA AT IT'S WORST! 108.7.8.99 (talk) 09:03, 16 May 2010 (UTC) You haven't got the point, 108. Bugs is never wrong. He is right here. We are building an encyclopedia together. He is a great asset to the project. Please register a user name. Kittybrewster ☎ 09:53, 16 May 2010 (UTC) I understand your point, and I'm fine with it, IF you are saying that he disagreed with the suggestion that the article doesn't belong. But, he didn't! He summarily and without discussion DELETED IT! He even had a few snide words on the side ("el garbage-o" or something like that). He didn't even say "HEY, your tone is un-called-for, stop it". He then deleted follow-on text that was justifiably critical of his unheard-of (in my experience) action, engaged in an edit war, then made one-sided justification for blocking. This guy might be nice most of the time, but today he pulled out all his powers to BULLY. 108.7.8.99 (talk) 10:11, 16 May 2010 (UTC) I get your point too. But please would you lose the capital letters. Kittybrewster ☎ 10:40, 16 May 2010 (UTC) Okey Dokey.  :-) 108.7.8.99 (talk) 11:06, 16 May 2010 (UTC) Thank you 108. @Bugs. Please would you AGF and not seek to block 108. Kittybrewster ☎ 11:44, 16 May 2010 (UTC) Guys, this is all pretty well toned down now. But, I was surprised that Bugs had changed the name of the section to "Personal Attacks from an IP". I see it as more like calling an over-reaction what it was. But anyway, talk pages are primarily for discussion of the article. I changed the title back to the essential issue. I toned it down with lower case and fewer exclamations. If it was left as Bugs' title, it wouldn't be about the article, and the text after it would make no sense. It would also make Bugs appear like he had a big chip on his shoulder. Actually, I would think Bugs would want me to keep the original capitalized text and all the exclamation points - It does make me look bad! I am perfectly willing to let myself look foolish here by leaving my, uh, "toned up" initial comments. 108.7.8.99 (talk) 13:07, 16 May 2010 (UTC) Very good. Now would everybody please retire to their dressing rooms for a nice cup of tea and a sit down. Kittybrewster ☎ 13:19, 16 May 2010 (UTC) Heh. Heh. Heh. I could use a sit-down! All that testosterone and fighting has me all drawn out. Kittybrewster, you're a nice stabilizing influence. I feel much better now. Yours, "108" 108.7.8.99 (talk) 13:36, 16 May 2010 (UTC) And he got one, a week's worth, for block evasion. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:31, 16 May 2010 (UTC) You win, Bugs!  :-) 108.7.0.217 (talk) 04:40, 17 May 2010 (UTC) Not so fast there Kitty, I'd like to have my say as well. :) The discussion page is for discussion and it "bugs" me that anyone would change or erase anything anyone else says, even when it is nuts. To poster 108: You don't seem to understand the beauty of Wikipedia and the advantage it has over what we used to have to use for information. By your way of thinking we would just now be getting around to writing articles on the flu pandemic and the Haiti earthquake, to name just two out of hundrends. I LOVE Wikipedia! OK, I'll get off my soap box now and have a nice cup of Earl Gray tea. Gandydancer (talk) 13:48, 16 May 2010 (UTC) I took it as trolling: Editorializing and blanket personal attacks on wikipedians. In short, nothing of any value to the article. If y'all think differently, you're welcome to it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:39, 16 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.[15] Beagel (talk) 16:22, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Thunderbirds

How come the Thunderbirds haven't shown up yet? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.253.48.80 (talk) 13:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Because they're fictional? 192.12.88.7 (talk) 22:52, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Spill discharge whitewashed in article

The spill has discharged 56,000 to 84,000 barrels a day according to independent researchers. And this is only from one of the leaks. [16] Why is the number 5000 barrels a day still in the lead? According to that discharge rate, the spill has released at least 1.5 million barrels, or 60 million gallons. Once again, only from one of the leaks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.161.166.130 (talk) 13:27, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I recommend increasing the estimated range on the oil spill flow rate. I just read this article http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36800673/ns/us_news-environment/ which meets wiki reliability that puts the rate closer to 200,000 barrels a day. Mojokabobo (talk) 17:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

200,000 GALLONS, not barrels. Thats two very different units. - Aalox (Say Hello • My Work) 20:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I am so sorry about that. I totally misread the article. Thank god it's not barrels, lol, that'd be wwwwaaayyyy worse. I'm so sorry I misread that. my apologies. Mojokabobo (talk) 17:02, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

big error

"Steven Wereley, an associate professor at Purdue University used a computer analysis (particle image velocimetry) yielding a rate of 700,000 barrels (29,000,000 US gal) per day.[72][73] "

Someone has multiplied by 10 those numbers. How could someone make write such a big mistake? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.112.28.79 (talk) 05:49, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Done Been a lot of reformatting of units lately. Must have been an extra zero added somehow during that. Corrected now.- Aalox (Say Hello • My Work) 06:45, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposal: Make early mention of the fact that this is an oil gusher

Originally to resolve including "Gulf Gusher" as an alternative title for the article

Name	Hits	Link
Deepwater horizon oil spill	1,040	[17]
Gulf of Mexico oil spill	6,290	[18]
BP oil spill	2,620	[19]
Deepwater BP oil spill	18	[20]
"oil gusher" (with quotes)	859	"oil+gusher"&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=
oil gusher (no quotes)	4920	[21]
Gulf gusher	105	[22]

We can't include every nickname people create for this thing or the lead will be 5 miles long.- Aalox (Say Hello • My Work) 07:33, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is not some nickname that I invented. The problem with the present catastrophe is that it is not a "leak" or a "spill", but an immense underwater oil gusher. For "oil gusher", Google News give 881 results, practically all about the present catastrophe. Since "oil gusher" has already its general meaning, I took the second best, which is sufficiently specific and also relatively widely used. Kokot.kokotisko (talk) 08:05, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Unlike the oil gushers of the 1800s and early 1900s, this well had pressure control systems that failed. The proper term is blowout. Gulf gusher also doesn't have a result listing at all comparable to the other names (Less then a tenth).- Aalox (Say Hello • My Work) 08:21, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Please notice the update that I made to the table. Unfortunately, it seems that oil gusher history has not ended in 1800s and 1900s. Please note that 100% hits on the first three pages of the Gg. News searches for "oil gusher", resp. oil gusher (without quotes) talk about the present catastrophe. With your kind permission, I would account for this reported fact in the intro section of the article. Kokot.kokotisko (talk) 10:49, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't give premission, we need to follow the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle and reach Wikipedia:Consensus. Give it a day or so and see what happens here. Also, the only thing the oil gusher search results prove is that we should delete the Oil Gusher article and make it a redirect to here (/sarcasm), it says nothing about Gulf Gusher being a name for this event. - Aalox (Say Hello • My Work) 12:44, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for education, less for reporting me preventively on the admins board (why didn't you report yourself?). As for my proposal, I don't mean to create names, I just want to call spade a spade. For such a long time we read about 1,000bbl/day 'leak', then 5,000bbl/day, now it turns out like 25,000 bbl/day or more gushing unrestricted from a 20 inch pipe. The search results of "oil gusher" prove that for the news today, oil gusher is a synonym for the present disaster. Maybe in 50 years there will be more such disasters (if current practice of exploration continues) and "Gulf gusher" will not be specific enough to identify which one we are talking about. But Wikipedia will remain open and the generations after us will surely be able to add the disambig page. Kokot.kokotisko (talk) 14:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Please do not side step the issue in an attempt to make yourself look correct. Your edits [23], [24] and [25] are attempting to include "Gulf Gusher" as an alternative title for the article. This is VERY different from simply making early mention an oil gusher. - Aalox (Say Hello • My Work) 15:22, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sidestepping, just making a concession. I still think that the best way to say that this is a gusher is to use Gulf gusher among the alternative names, as roughly 100 of news reports did. That gives everybody the correct picture of the situation right from the beginning. But with strong opponents like you, 100 news reports is not enough. Therefore, I resort to the second best solution, to state that it is an oil gusher near the beginning, which you fortunately hold to be an entirely different issue. Kokot.kokotisko (talk) 17:18, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah, thank you for clarifying. Closing 'Gulf Gusher', opening Blowout vs Gusher. Being an engineer, I do have a strong preference for the techically correct terms, in this case, blowout over oil gusher. I was actually in the middle of merging the two articles before this all started. Perhaps if you could somehow make it clear blowout is the techical term while still using gusher. Perhaps something along the lines of "an on going blowout, simular to the oil gushers of the 1800s"? 17:32, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Anything, if it gives the right intuitive idea of the magnitude of the ongoing spill. The word "gusher", which is not supposed to occur in 2000s, does justice to the current disaster. I have nothing against improving the wording, but I consider "blowout" more of a PR term in this particular case. It's as if when 5 safety mechanisms fail one by one, the blowout preventer still retains the last safety feature of preventing the resulting gusher to be called by its name. Kokot.kokotisko (talk) 17:56, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

• I'm opposed to the term gusher. My view is the media are currently using the term in a matter of emphasized prose not in terms of technical correctness. I do not see it as a neutral term and although I think it does accurately describe the magnitude of the catastrophe, I don't think its use is appropriate. Eitehr way, its an issue that should be resolved outside of this article and since most wikipedia articles use blowout at a current time, that's where I'm placing my support. Labattblueboy (talk) 18:22, 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)

Pictures/Diagrams needed

Could we get some decent diagrams for this article? There are limited pd gov. galleries out there such as:

• Coastguard
• NOAA
• NOAA
• IncidentNews
• Fish and Wildlife Service

Smallman12q (talk) 01:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Added excellent map of newly doubled, 19% of Gulf federal waters now (as of May 18 2010 6pm EST) closed to fishing, copyright free from NOAA. Paulscrawl (talk) 20:24, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Eight edits lost in copyedit

These edits were lost when I began switching over to list-defined references today. Could somebody reinsert them please. Ottre 06:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Citing WSJ articles

There are references to 4 or 5 WSJ articles. But WSJ requires a subscription to access these articles. Shouldn't the references be removed? --Sarabseth (talk) 09:45, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Definitely not, the WSJ has the most comprehensive coverage of the spill of any American newspaper. I have begun switching to list-defined references which provides space for a quote in each citation (for an example, see ref #6). Ottre 11:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Isn't there a policy of not citing subscription-required sources?

Also, "the WSJ has the most comprehensive coverage of the spill of any American newspaper" is extremely debatable. --Sarabseth (talk) 11:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, WP:PAYWALL says the opposite. Gabbe (talk) 12:28, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

There is a frequent confusion with WP:EL, which discourages links to pay sites. But for general sourcing they are absolutely acceptable (as would be a scientific book you have to buy or a journal article only available via Inter-Library-Loan to many readers). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to all three of you! --Sarabseth (talk) 15:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

You could put {{Subscription required}} in the id section of the citation template.Smallman12q (talk) 17:22, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Size of oil well

Does anyone know the estimated size of the Macondo Prospect?--ML5 (talk) 16:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Found something. 50 million barrels of crude. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601072&sid=aawwCXDN1UsM --ML5 (talk) 11:32, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Rweiand, 18 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Spelling error. Please change: The Facebook group Everyday Wildlife Chanpions

to The Facebook group Everyday Wildlife Champions

Rweiand (talk) 17:42, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Not done: - I removed the reference to the Facebook group, as inline external links are not appropriate per the external link policy. Thanks for spotting that, though!--~TPW 17:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Archiving proposal

Considering the volume of information here, I suggest setting up a bot to archive this article's talk page. Most threads here die out after a day or two with a few outliers that have some five days' worth of discussion, so I believe we could set the bot to archive any thread with ten days of inactivity safely enough.--~TPW 18:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

It looks like that is already the case: - Aalox (Say Hello • My Work) 19:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

{{User:MiszaBot/config |archiveheader = {{aan}} |maxarchivesize = 100K |counter = 1 |minthreadsleft = 5 |algo = old(10d) |archive = Talk:Deepwater Horizon oil spill/Archive %(counter)d }}

Yep, I missed that - but this is set up for archiving after ten days and we have threads that ended on 29 April. I will instead just try to fix it.--~TPW 19:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I can understand. The sections on changing the name from Deepwater Horizon drilling rig explosion tp Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Are still around to. It's crazy, that ended weeks ago (but some people keep adding to it). I close them up with that collapsable table thing and recommended that they create a new section if they want to propose moving it again. Leaving it open will just make a huge mess, with people asking to include oil spill getting mixed up with people asking to include BP. - Aalox (Say Hello • My Work) 20:13, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

In addition I have reduced the archive interval to 8 days. This talk page is currently around 100k which isn't too bad for an active articlel; but perhaps because of the semi protection, some probably pointless discussions and I guess other issues, it currently has 47 different topics which is quite a few and probably too many. Nil Einne (talk) 20:24, 18 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)

Edit request from 74.105.91.119, 20 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Please change "Short term effects" to "Short-term effects" and "Long term effects" to "Long-term effects". Without hyphens, it's necessary to identify what a "term effect" is and how such an effect may be short or long.

74.105.91.119 (talk) 01:37, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Done. I'm assuming you meant "efforts" instead of "effects". -- œ^™ 01:52, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

BTW, the article will be automatically unprotected on May 23, so in just a few days you will be able to make these edits yourself. However, an even better option would be to register for an account! -- œ^™ 01:54, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps open innovation efforts to engage the public to find solutions to the oil spill should be mentioned in the article

deepwaterhorizonresponse.com has a solutions post page and number where solutions can be given. NPR interviewed the president of Innocentive.com, a leading open innovation web site, which now has 900 people signed up to develop solutions to this crisis. In addition I have setup a wiki to facilitate collaborative development of solutions at oilspill.wikia.com though it is preliminary. This oil spill has motivated a number of people to get involved and help both because of the scope of the crisis and, I think, because everyone can contemplate stopping a leak. A reference to this movement in the article might be worthwhile.--John 14:23 (talk) 20:07, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree with idea of mentioning such pages as encyclopedia worthy, though haven't reviewed any of the particular pages mentioned, so no comment on their suitability.

68.165.11.206 (talk) 13:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

What about the role of BP in US military contracts?

What does BPs winning of large jet fuel contracts have to do with environmental exceptions and large awards in Iraqi oil??

• April 06, 2010 -- "Air BP, Warrenville, Ill. is being awarded a maximum $124,754,182 fixed-price with economic price adjustment, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract for aviation turbine fuel."

• http://www.defense.gov/contracts/contract.aspx?contractid=4253

• 16-Aug-2009 -- "BP West Coast Products (dba Arco) in La Palma, CA won a maximum $516.8 million fixed price with economic price adjustment, indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity contract (SP0600-09-D-0512) for aviation fuel."

• http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/US-Defense-Energy-Support-Center-Awards-Up-to-904M-in-Fuel-Contracts-05707/

• August 24, 2008 -- "Air BP, Warrenville, Ill. is being awarded a maximum $12,446,821 fixed price with economic price adjustment contract for jet fuel."

• http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-183593856.html

• September 14, 2005 -- "BP West Coast Products LLC, La Palma, Calif., is being awarded a maximum $587,804,938 fixed price with economic price adjustment for JP8 Turbine Fuel and F-76 Fuel for Defense Energy Support Center. "

• http://www.accessmylibrary.com/article-1G1-136245757/usa-bp-west-coast.html

• AIR BP: http://www.bp.com/homepage.do?categoryId=6100

Krizpy99 (talk) 14:33, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow where this is heading? Is this some sort of synthesis we're supposed to do? We can't add anything that hasn't been presented by reliable sources. __meco (talk) 19:16, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't defense contracts themselves provided by the federal government be considered reliable?

And what does BPs role of being (seemingly) the largest winning or US Defense fuel contracts possible have to do with their getting environemtnal exceptions?? You know, military needs the oil, so gov't gives okay -- as our military intervention overseas is impossible without fuel.

/agree Go OP --Subarusvx (talk) 00:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see how this is relevant to the oil spill. Jtrainor (talk) 07:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

How is this not relevent? Are we going to ignore all the 'free passes' that BP got before the spill occurred? Shall we also ignore all the cries for deregulation and fail to examine how this played into the accident?

I don't see how getting trillions of dollars in contracts from the US Military for fuel over the last 10 years doesn't play into BPs yearning for bigger better wells in deeper more dangerous waters. I also don't see how you cannot relate BPs role as a war fueler to the 'free pass' it had gotten concerning environmental regulations.

Furthermore, BP received the biggest wins in the Iraq oil lottery -- no doubt because the US has with BP the biggest contracts.

This isn't relevant to the oil spill because it's about BP in general and not the oil spill specifically. Go edit that into the BP article, it's irrelevant here and will be removed as off-topic. Jtrainor (talk) 18:49, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Short Term Efforts - edit request

Should be 3000 barrels being recaptured instead of 3000 gallons —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chenxiyuan (talk • contribs) 04:24, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Need cite for assertion that up to 100,000 barrels a day leaking. Here's one.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126809525

68.165.11.206 (talk) 13:35, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Edits

Flow estimates need to reference the newest sources where BP is drawing 5000 Barrels per day through the insertion tubes, and the flow is still strong. http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gIXWYBTpLtSayJtg41LKXpxSxVPAD9FQPKC00

Expansion predictions should indicate the possibility of a Loop Current eddy forming and taking significant volumes of oil towards Texas. http://www.roffs.com/DeepwaterHorizon/ROFFSOil20May10.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.236.65.120 (talk) 00:44, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Scientists find giant oil plumes under Gulf

This is certainly something to be concerned about: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37171468/ns/us_news-the_new_york_times/ Gandydancer (talk) 02:28, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, and this should be added to the wiki entry in the section on the size of the leak.

It might also be useful to include some calculations based on the largest of the reported plumes:

10 miles x 3 miles by 300 feet is 1.7 cubic miles.

1.7 cubic miles is 1,876,900,000,000 gallons.

Exxon Valdez was ~11,000,000 gallons.

Largest spill in history according to wikipedia was 462,000,000 gallons.

So if these numbers are correct, Deepwater Horizon is now the largest oil spill in history *by a factor of more than 4,000*.

And that's only counting the largest of several plumes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimshowalter (talk • contribs) 04:18, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Those figures are implausibly massive. The plumes are of oil suspended in the water; they aren't solid blocks of oil. The plumes' existence and size definitely deserve a mention, but don't extrapolate the figures given because the result will not be accurate. Wait till an article estimating the amount of oil in these plumes appears and quote figures from that. --Xyiyizi 15:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The information is relevant and I was in the process of extracting information from the article but in the second page it states: "Much about the situation below the water remains unclear, and the scientists stressed that their results were preliminary." That made it a case of including the information with a label of "According to scientists doing preliminary analysis it may be that..." and so on or maybe just waiting a few days for this information to become more precise. I would rather opt for more information to be factually determined and then include it. GaussianCopula (talk) 05:01, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps... On the other hand, this information has now been covered by all the major news outlets. Furthermore, your concerns that

"Much about the situation below the water remains unclear, and the scientists stressed that their results were preliminary." That made it a case of including the information with a label of "According to scientists doing preliminary analysis it may be that..."

That could apply to just about everything in this article. It seems that they have found the plumes and have tested the surrounding waters for oxygen content, but since they've never seen anything like it they are (naturally) unsure of other factors, and that may take some time. Gandydancer (talk) 14:08, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I am not going to challenge what you have just indicated. Like I said, when I first read your initial statement I went to the article and felt it was relevant to include. I then hesitated when in the second page I read what was previously indicated. I decided I will wait before including the information. If you or anyone else wants to extract information from this article and include it in the article, be assured that I will not make any attempts to remove it or challenge it. That is all. GaussianCopula (talk) 02:51, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

This needs to be added. It will never be released to the public. NOAA has denied the existence of the plume, calling them an anomaly which could not be verified as oil. You will most likely not hear about this story again because it has been buried.

The government has attacked independent scientists on the issue. http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/business/deepwaterhorizon/7011584.html

In an escalation of the battle between the white house and the scientific community... an escalating war between the Obama administration and the scientific community

discovery news responded to the the attacks

With the weight of evidence that has so far been made public, Lubchenco’s statement smacks of hiding behind claims of incomplete data to obfuscate understanding of the true magnitude of this spill. This makes sense when oil companies hoping to salvage their image and prevent pesky scrutiny and regulations do it — their profit motive is clear. But what has NOAA have to gain from behaving this way?" http://news.discovery.com/earth/why-dont-we-know-how-big-the-gulf-oil-spill-is.html

After that response from discovery... the story was buried.I can only speculate because of threats from the government.

My not so unbiased recap of the controversy can be found here. http://blog.alexanderhiggins.com/2010/05/20/discovery-earth-smacks-noaa-engaging-gulf-oil-spill-coverup/

Alexhiggins732 (talk) 23:53, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

This "event" is being discussed only in terms of the oil being discharged into the gulf, but there is some concern that the amounts of natural gases such as methane that are escaping from the well are in excess of the amounts of oil that are being released into the water. The environmental impact of these gases may be of more import than that of the oil. It is shocking that this element of the discussion is being overlooked by almost everyone who is discussing the matter publicly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Captainbs (talk • contribs) 16:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

May I suggest that the citation in Dispersants, from the Christian Science Monitor , currently #133, be replaced by a different source. The article is very vague about who is the scientist inquiring on the dispersant are. For example, this quote from the article "Inquiries among independent scientists inquired whether Corexit might be responsible.", is very vague. Also the part about the underwater plumes being caused by corexit is a bit redundant as its already discussed in the section Underwater oil Plumes. As for the size of the spill in comparison to others, the BBC had this article on the 7th. Vishiano (talk) 19:35, 21 May 2010 (UTC)