Talk:Deepwater Horizon oil spill/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

MS Paint Illustrations.

Is someone going to give an award to the 5-year-old who drew the illustrations in the article using MS Paint? Don't let quality work go unrewarded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.64.164.150 (talk) 21:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Point taken, don't be flippant. Ottre 23:56, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

[1]. While extremely crude, they do admittedly do the job. Unless you can do better (Which if you can PLEASE DO), try to be nice. 20:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I just love the "robot" and "robots" thrown in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.64.164.150 (talk) 19:32, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

The "missing, presumed dead"

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

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

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

Spill flow rate internal reference

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Spill flow rate numbers

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) 17:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the article linked by Mojokabobo mentions 200,000 gallons or 5000 barrels per day, not 200,000 barrels. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:21, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. - Aalox (Say Hello • My Work) 17:40, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

In their permit to derill, bp estimated162000 bbl/day worst case. Huffington post misread it as 162000 gallons. The permit is ambiguous in that it does not spell out units everywhere(though reading othe discharge estimates pointys clearly to barrels). Thus I have also linked the thunder horse permit which does include units and removes the ambiguity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jinxman1 (talk • contribs) 05:58, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I am so sorry, i misread the article that i quoted there, it's 200,000 gallons a day, not barrels *headslap* Mojokabobo (talk) 16:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

There is further detail in the House sub-committee page; Steve Wereley, Professor of Mechanical Engineering at Purdue, gave a presentation with his estimate of 56,000 - 84,000 barrels per day. Details can be found here: <http://energycommerce.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2008:energy-and-commerce-subcommittee-briefing-on-qsizing-up-the-bp-oil-spill-science-and-engineering-measuring-methodsq&catid=122:media-advisories&Itemid=55> Mhmonkman (talk) 00:37, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The article is misleadingly even-handed about the spill rate numbers, presenting 5,000 barrels a day as a still-current lower figure. But an expert testified today that BP is completely alone in clinging to the 5,000-barrel figure as a plausible number. The article needs to be changed to reflect the current consensus of all outside parties. For Wikipedia to continue to represent the 5k figure as just one among many plausible estimates is to function as a propaganda outlet for BP:

"This is not rocket science," said Steve Wereley, associate mechanical engineering professor at Purdue University, who pegged the spill's volume at about 70,000 barrels per day. "All outside estimates are considerably higher than BP's." [2] MdArtLover (talk) 02:34, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

BP is no longer asserting the 5000 barrel spill rate. This is primarily due to the fact that they are now recovering 5000 barrels/day and oil is still gushing out of the leak points.

Sparkatus (talk) 14:35, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Ownership needs to add up to 100%

{{editsemiprotected}}

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

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

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

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

Done -- œ^™ 01:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

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

Oil in Gulf coast

About the third paragraph where it says "Experts fear that due to factors such as petroleum toxicity and oxygen depletion, it will result in an environmental disaster whether it reaches Gulf coast or not." Here are some of the news. Tar balls have been found on the beaches of Alabama. Recently, losts of oil have been found on the marshes of the coasts of Louisiana affecting the wildlife there. Now, the oil is expected to reach the coasts of Key West and Cuba less than 2 days from now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.98.184.33 (talk) 23:50, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. As the writer above points out, the oil most certainly HAS reached the gulf coast, as reported, with photo, by MSNBC: "Thick, sticky oil crept deeper into delicate marshes of the Mississippi Delta Friday, an arrival dreaded for a month since the crude started spewing into the Gulf" [3] . Yet the Wiki article still speaks of "reaching the coast" as a hypothetical occurrence: "Experts fear that ... it will result in an environmental disaster whether it reaches Gulf coast or not". Just sayin'.... MdArtLover (talk) 17:21, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I just removed "whether it reaches Gulf coast or not" from the lead. Thundermaker (talk) 17:38, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! MdArtLover (talk) 17:47, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Request for feedback on an edit

This edit: cur | prev) 18:25, 21 May 2010 Aalox (talk | contribs) (111,631 bytes) (→Spill flow rate: Lets stay NPOV and resist the urge to just bash on BP. Nothing here puts BP in a positive light. It this is a horrible thing, but we don't need to make it darker then it is.) (undo

deleted these words: (The company has refused to allow scientists to perform accurate, independent measurements of the flow), claiming that it isn't relevant to the response and such efforts might distract from them.

Here is the quote from the article used as the reference:

BP has resisted entreaties from scientists that they be allowed to use sophisticated instruments at the ocean floor that would give a far more accurate picture of how much oil is really gushing from the well. “The answer is no to that,” a BP spokesman, Tom Mueller, said on Saturday. “We’re not going to take any extra efforts now to calculate flow there at this point. It’s not relevant to the response effort, and it might even detract from the response effort.”

However, according to this article http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/05/21-0

BP and the Obama administration have said they don't want to take the measurements for fear of interfering with efforts to stop the leaks. That decision, however, runs counter to BP's own regional plan for dealing with offshore leaks. "In the event of a significant release of oil," the 583-page plan says on Page 2, "an accurate estimation of the spill's total volume . . . is essential in providing preliminary data to plan and initiate cleanup operations."

And:

BP's estimate that only 5,000 barrels of oil are leaking daily from a well in the Gulf of Mexico, which the Obama administration hasn't disputed, could save the company millions of dollars in damages when the financial impact of the spill is resolved in court, legal experts say.

While I feel that Aalox makes a very good point and I know that it is always on my mind as I make my edits, in this case I feel s/he is not correct in his/her edit. This article needs to reflect the fact that most people no longer expect any honesty from BP officials whether it is about the amount of the spill or why they have, one month into the disaster, refused to allow an evaluation of the amount of the spill.

Thoughts? Gandydancer (talk) 23:38, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

A few dates are missing...

I find that the oil spill rate section is slightly jumbled. Though the estimates are posted, the exact dates at which they are made are absent. The gravity of this situation will not be that obvious until the dates are pointed out.

Thus, will someone please put in the dates so we will know what was the estimate and how much the estimate is now. 96.246.251.187 (talk) 02:44, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Gulf oil spill

The president does refer to it as the BP oil spill. Alternately, most google traffic on my blog comes for "Gulf oil spill" which is also the most used title in the media and on social networking sites. Alexhiggins732 (talk) 23:15, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

This article should be named Gulf oil spill. That is the most used title in the media and most social networking sites. As far as the other comments about being much bigger than this, This one may be the big kahuna when its all said and done. We are already looking at 3.1 million barrels of oil using the most credible estimate available today which puts the flow rate at 100,000 bpd (70,000 bpd for main leak and 25,000 bpd for smaller leak) Alexhiggins732 (talk) 23:19, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Date discrepancy

"...spokesman Scott Dean said Friday, May 20, that BP had responded to the EPA directive with a letter ..." Friday was May 21. What day did this happen? Friday the 21st, or Thursday the 20th? Farfromunique (talk) 23:51, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Last estimate in Liter

Please put the figure for the last estimate in SI units of liter, that is: 4 000 000 G * 3.785411784 L/G = 15 141 647.136 L; 15 000 000 Liter, rounded properly.

The 4,000,000 G number was converted and then rounded already; the original bbl number should be used for conversion to liters.

100,000 bbl * 158.9873 l/bbl = 15,898,730 l which rounds up to 16,000,000. Thundermaker (talk) 17:46, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Now I see it; thank You for the remark. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.180.140.222 (talk) 03:51, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Made Minor Fix

Changed "On May 1 two United States Department of Defense [...]" to "On May 1, two [...]" to make it seem better-structured. This okay? Also, keep your eye out for anything else like that. Confusion can cause a reread or two. Most readers probably don't like doing that. Venku Tur'Mukan (talk) 17:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Mississippi Canyon 252 name removed, why?

My addition of Mississippi Canyon 252 to the list of names in the introduction was reverted by User:Labattblueboy because of the claim that the list of names was too long even though I'd cited an official NOAA document saying that this is what they call the spill (see page four of this this pdf). It would seem only reasonable to me that Wikipedia's list of names for the spill would include the official name given by NOAA. I request other editors to re-add this given that my edits were reverted. Theflyer (talk) 00:35, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Mississippi Canyon 252 is a location, not an event name. No media, less one or two examples[4] have employed a name that includes Mississippi Canyon 252. None of the past name discussion have involved or considered the name Mississippi Canyon 252, so i see it highly unusual to list it as a common name. If we list every name that comes up, we will end up with a list at the start that extends far beyond something useful.--Labattblueboy (talk) 00:49, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. I can understand the logic even if not fully agreeing with the conclusion. I do see that the section "Deepwater Horizon" states "the platform was on Mississippi Canyon Block 252, referred to as the Macondo Prospect". Since the term is at least included in the narrative and linked to the Macondo Project, which is in the list of names, I can let this go. I did create a redirect for Mississippi Canyon Block 252 that will bring people to this article. Theflyer (talk) 01:08, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Where did it start?

I wonder are "in the United States" categories precise? It seems that Deepwater Horizon was located not on the U.S. territorial waters (12 nautical miles from the baseline) and not even in the contiguous zone, but much further on the open international waters of Mexican Gulf, within the U.S. exclusive economic zone. It may be one of "disasters in Louisiana" but the spill itself is rather international maritime incident. Cien (talk) 00:02, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

This is a very interesting point that has crossed my mind, too. I do a whole lot of work with Categories, so I'm going to give this question some serious thought. You might also want to raise this issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories and see what folks there think. Cgingold (talk) 05:44, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

The U.S. exclusive economic zone, although at the same time international waters, is under the administration of the U.S. authorities. Also, the Macondo Prospect federal lease to the BP-led consortium was done by the U.S. administration. Therefore, "in the United States" categories are fully applicable. We have similar practice with all offshore oil and gas fields which are usually outside of exclusive economic zones, but categorized as "oilfields of country X" or something similar. Beagel (talk) 09:43, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Interesting - does that mean other countries with economic risk might also have authority? Granted that operations would be expensive but may pay off in the long-run. Also how does BP have authority to restrict the area, especially that of the air? --66.223.168.45 (talk) 00:32, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

'Expression error: Unrecognised punctuation character ","' under Short-term efforts section

There's red error text in the third paragraph of Deepwater_Horizon_oil_spill#Short-term_efforts. I know it'll get fixed soon anyway, but hopefully pointing out will get it fixed sooner. Thanks. 174.55.189.19 (talk) 04:56, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Made a sloppy fix to it. Broke it into (1000) and (5000) instead of (1000-5000). - Aalox (Say Hello • My Work) 05:12, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Dispersants

We seem to be missing an article on Sea-Brat/Sea-Brat 4 ... and the Corexit article could do with expansion.

70.29.210.155 (talk) 12:06, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Not much yet in truly substantive news sources on Sea-Brat yet -- almost all news mentions of Sea-Brat simply cite BP response to May 20 EPA directive. I'll try to work on it, after a few more pressing updates to Dispersants section and Corexit article, re: BP response & EPA counter-response to May 20 directive. Paulscrawl (talk) 16:44, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Percentage of Gulf closed to fishing

I know fishermen are liars, but I thought the National Marine Fisheries Service could do better than this fishy percentage comparison:

"The closure measures 45,728 sq mi (118,435 sq km), which is approximately 19 percent of the Gulf of Mexico exclusive economic zone." "FB10-040: BP Oil Spill: NOAA Modifies Commercial and Recreational Fishing Closure in the Oil-Affected Portions of the Gulf of Mexico" NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Regional Office, Southeast Fishery Bulletin. May 18, 2010. http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/bulletins/pdfs/2010/FB10-040_BP_Oil_Spill_Closure_051810.pdf

vs.

"The closure measures 54,096 sq mi (140,109 sq km), which is slightly more than 22% of the Gulf of Mexico exclusive economic zone." "FB10-045: BP Oil Spill: NOAA Modifies Commercial and Recreational Fishing Closure in the Oil-Affected Portions of the Gulf of Mexico" NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Regional Office, Southeast Fishery Bulletin. May 25, 2010. http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/bulletins/pdfs/2010/FB10-045_BP_Oil_Spill_Closure_052510.pdf

At least one of those percentage estimates must be wrong. What is the exact size of the Gulf of Mexico's share in the US Exclusive Economic Zone?

Paulscrawl (talk) 22:26, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Most commercial fishing is coastal, so what percentage of the fish-able waters would that be?

69.171.160.67 (talk) 02:43, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Some interesting video

Someone at my forum posted this from the video - I had no idea that these explosions were going on. How on earth can they ever get this beast plugged up? http://monkeyfister.blogspot.com/2010/05/major-change-down-below.html Gandydancer (talk) 22:35, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Editorializing

{{editsemiprotected}} The media analysis subsection states (apparently disquotationally) that "Six years later, BP still wasn’t ready" in reference to the company's capability for dealing with a major oil spill. This opinion does not seem to attributed to any commentator or reliable source, and so does not seem a neutral statement of uncontroversial fact. I propose that it be removed. Thank you. 86.45.155.132 (talk) 04:28, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Seems covered to me: 2004 [...] the company wasn't prepared for the long-term, round-the-clock task of dealing with a deep-sea spill.[...] It still isn't, as Deepwater Horizon demonstrates - 2010 being 6 years after 2004.  Chzz  ►  11:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

 Not done

Suggestion: The U.S. Government has named BP as the responsible party in the incident and officials have said the company will be held accountable for all cleanup costs resulting from the oil spill.[11][12] BP has accepted responsibility for the oil spill and the cleanup costs, but indicated they are not at fault as the platform was run by Transocean personnel.[13] I suggest removing the last part shown here in italics. BP may have argued with Transocean and Halliburton initially, but they have since repeatedly and consistently accepted responsibility. --ArishiaNishi (talk) 04:12, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Litigation section - Smith Stag LLC

I have concerns that the Litigation section has been largely written by representatives Smith Stag LLC. The section, written largely by Pwendel66, almost exclusively quotes and mentions the partners in the firm (Michael Stag & Stuart Smith). I'm not sure if this is a case of someone rep'ing the company but nonetheless suggest the text be removed.--Labattblueboy (talk) 15:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree. A mention is fine, but this is ridiculous. Gandydancer (talk) 17:04, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I tried to summarize and trim this section, but further work is needed. Beagel (talk) 17:06, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I've made a bit of a clean start of it, but it could still use some additional material.--Labattblueboy (talk) 05:14, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Interesting article: on the potential technical solutions

Here is an interesting article on the potential technical solutions, pros and cons of each. It is technically more descriptive than the typical news media accounts, but still written for a layman level of understanding. Worth the read: Grading the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Improvised Cleanup Tech N2e (talk) 10:58, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I should mention that the above article describes the so-called "Top Kill" approach, the approach BP has been preparing for several days now and may execute as soon as today. N2e (talk) 20:20, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Disaster or Catastrophe?

BP seems to dislike the word "Catastrophe" associated with the damage and effects of this during interviews and is quick to correct any news agency or reporter using this word specifically. Wikipedia itself defines the word as "A catastrophe is an extremely large-scale disaster, a horrible event." and merriam-webster defines Catastrope as "3 a : a violent and sudden change in a feature of the earth". Does this not fit the definition? B4Ctom1 (talk) 16:47, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Compared to the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake it's very small fray so far. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:14, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Description of a "Top Kill"

This article, Grading the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Improvised Cleanup Tech, describes a "Top Kill" this way:

The Top Kill

"With the majority of the leak now funneled through the riser insertion tool, and no signs of additional degradation of the riser, BP appears ready to attempt a complete and somewhat orderly shutdown of the well. The procedure is called a "top kill" and would involve pumping heavy mud and other drilling fluids into the riser's still-functioning valve structure. Once the flow becomes a trickle, crews would chase the mud with concrete, eventually plugging the entire riser and much of the well's structure near the seabed. BP is reportedly planning a top kill as soon as May 23rd. That would be a happy ending. Or as happy as this story can possibly end.

"The Upside: Top kills are probably the most routine of the tactics that BP has tried or has yet to rule out.

"The Downside: Unfortunately, no one has attempted a top kill at depths of 5000 feet. And while the riser does not seem to be getting worse, there's always the chance that it could break up or otherwise fail before a sufficient amount of mud and/or cement is pumped into it."

My understanding is that BP has been manuevering to prepare for such a process for several days now, and may actually attempt the "Top Kill" today. N2e (talk) 20:28, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

It has indeed begun today. Too early to tell results, if any. http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oil-spill/index.ssf/2010/05/bp_says_top_kill_has_begun.html Paulscrawl (talk) 20:44, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Dredging suggestion

why dont they just hire all of the dredging compines around the us to start sucking up the water and oil thats all they need to do —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.85.78.71 (talk) 23:16, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed.--mono 01:21, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Zetaex, 14 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

It has now been confirmed that 70,000 barrels per day are being released. An Exxon Valdez size spill every four days.

Zetaex (talk) 00:47, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Feinoha ^{Talk, My master} 01:19, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Possibly refers to this NPR story: [5] --Kkmurray (talk) 15:12, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Seems like a good story to me.Mojokabobo (talk) 17:06, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The most reliable estimate is now 95,000 barrels per day (70,000 + 25 BPD). Steve Wereley, a professor of mechanical engineering at Purdue University, testified that this was the combined leak rate before congress.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/richard-adams-blog/2010/may/19/deepwater-horizon-gulf-oil-spill-size http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/05/19/94467/engineer-oil-spill-videos-show.html http://www.bostonherald.com/news/national/south/view.bg?articleid=1256108&srvc=rss

The Government still has not backed off the 5,000 barrel per day estimate http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/19/gulf-oil-spill-markey-dem_n_582444.htm

But BP has already admitted that it has been siphoning 5000 bpd and video of the siphon showed that 5000 bpd barely put a dent in the amount leaking. http://blog.alexanderhiggins.com/2010/05/20/bp-siphon-capturing-5000-barrels-oil-day/ http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/environment/2010-05-21-wetlands_N.htm http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oil-spill/index.ssf/2010/05/bp_concedes_more_oil_spilling.html Alexhiggins732 (talk) 23:36, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

A possible explanation of the discrepancy is that a large fraction of the volume coming out of the ground is gas, not oil. See http://www.theenergycollective.com/TheEnergyCollective/66377

—WWoods (talk) 00:39, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

The Unified Command has recalculated the flow rate found here: http://www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com/go/doc/2931/569235/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alchemist1342 (talk • contribs) 20:18, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Vote Rigging?

Do any of these voters work for BP? 75.166.179.110 (talk) 09:43, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

You're an IP from Denver. Who do YOU work for? A rival of BP, perhaps? :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:20, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, it's impossible to rule out the possibility that one of these editors may be employed by BP. But in all honesty, that strikes me as highly unlikely. Every editor's complete edit history is open to view, and I believe all the registered editors were around before the current disaster began. Feel free to check out each of their edit histories if you wish. (I'm not particularly concerned and my time is limited.) Cgingold (talk) 12:22, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

If you search for "BP oil spill", it offers you the choice of the current one, or one from 2006, as a bonus. Way too much time is wasted on wikipedia debating the specific names of articles, especially for news items which may have multiple "common names", none of them "official". This one can easily be found if "BP" is the only thing you know about it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:19, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Not true. If you search "Gulf of Mexico Oil Disaster", this article doesn't show. And Wikipedia is almost always on page one of any search. "Deepwater Horizon" is not what most people are thinking about when they are thinking about the "Gulf of Mexico Oil Disaster."

It's like using "Felis Concolor" as the title for the Wikipedia page on "Mountain Lion".

"Felis Concolor" is the scientific name for a mountain lion, but no one is going to search for that.

In answer to the question about my affiliation--

I don't work for any energy or oil company of any sort.

About BP possibly trying to spin Wikipedia articles--

You don't think that BP, a multi-BILLION dollar company, wouldn't have a Wikipedia Public Relations team ready at all times, in case of an emergency like this?

Imagine having hundreds of millions of dollars for public relations--

Imagine being one of the most powerful companies in the world. BP has it's own private fire department for rig explosions, always ready for the next fire. You think they don't also have their own Public Relations Department, always at the ready too?

They could have been cultivating Wiki Private User Pages all along, just in case of a spill (the risk of spill always being present in the oil business). Their Public Relations team always ready with Wikipedia Private User Pages, just like a fire department. I'll bet a lot of big companies do it.

75.166.179.110 (talk) 16:50, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

It appears you are trying to discredit people for having opinions different from your own, people that have been contributing to Wikipedia for much longer than you have on a breadth of issues far wider than just BP, or the energy industry in general. Please focus your energy on improving Wikipedia, rather than making inflammatory and unsupported accusations. TastyCakes (talk) 22:16, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and by my Google search, this article does show up as the 8th result for "gulf of mexico oil disaster", not surprisingly considering the amount of coverage from sources other than Wikipedia. TastyCakes (talk) 22:18, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

If the soapboxing OP had bothered to check, he would have seen that the redirect page Gulf of Mexico oil disaster was added four days ago. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:42, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

The closing admin (and it won't be me, I'm involved in the discussion... but no, I don't work for BP) will of course look at the arguments, not just count the votes. So I wouldn't get too worried, either way. If there's any reason to suspect that those voting are one-issue accounts or socks or both, there are ways to check, and we do when necessary. But I see no grounds for the allegations at all.

We should also assume good faith on the part of the IP raising the issues. It takes a while to learn the rules here (such as NPA, which doesn't say what most think it does). Andrewa (talk) 00:19, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

First of all, ranking eighth means almost off of page one and studies actually show that almost no one clicks below number five on Google and Yahoo search results.

On the issue of determining user-affiliations with BP, I have never accused any one of being a BP employee.

I have not accused-- I have asked-- and according to Wikipedia guidelines it is OK to ask about that.

Someone else said it wasn't likely that a company like BP would try to spin a Wikipedia article-- and I answered that GENERAL statement with good reasoning for why it's very likely a potential problem.

That was a general answer to a general statement, not a personal accusation.

Another point about BP (and oil companies in general)-- (As it pertains to Wikipedia neutrality)-- there is an investigation underway right now of Oil companies bribing Interior Department (Bureau of Minerals) inspectors. We are talking about lots of bribery and not just a little either. (You can find that in all the major media outlets).

So it is NOT soapboxing to be concerned that an industry that is being investigated for (very recently) allegedly bribing US government officials, could also be easily capable of spinning a potentially high-profile Wikipedia article.

Wikipedia forbids that kind of editing. So why can't we ask (generally) if that rule is being breached?

75.166.179.110 (talk) 23:25, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Not that it is really relevant at all, but do you have a source on oil companies bribing US officials? The problem is you weren't asking "generally", you were asking because you didn't like the way the vote was turning out. Rather than taking a cursory look at the histories of who was voting against the move, you chose to accuse them of being BP puppets, not exactly showing good faith and not exactly a good way to get people on your side. TastyCakes (talk) 00:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I didn't make any personal accusations about individual voters-- but am I concerned that a company like BP, given it's record, could spin a Wikipedia article, or even a Discussion Page Edit Vote? Absolutely.

Here is the MSNBC report on Federal Drilling Regulators accepting gifts from the Oil Rig Industry. It just came out-- http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37337727/ns/gulf_oil_spill

Look, let me say this-- I don't think any particular individual person who voted for or against a Title Change on this article should be considered to be a BP PR worker. That would be unfair. I'm sure-- absolutely sure-- that there are well intentioned citizens on both sides of the issue here.

But could BP PR workers play or spin an article like this (or the BP corporate article)? Honestly, think about it.

Question-- what is the appropriate Wikipedia procedure for dealing with (investigating) this kind of concern?

How does Wikipedia handle this issue-- (huge companies manipulating Wikipedia pages related to them)?

I am not accusing, I am just asking a question. What is the Wikipedia procedure?

67.41.144.20 (talk) 00:49, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

P.S. By the way, I am writing from a Cafe today, hence the different IP address. I'm the same person that started this section.

Signed

67.41.144.20 (talk) 01:31, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

While it is obvious to all that this is an oil spill of disastrous proportions, you [IP] are being distinctly counterproductive. Earlier you made legal threats against me on my userpage, and now are continuing this nonsense here. Since you don't get the hint, I will be requesting you be blocked from editing Wikipedia for the legal threats. We don't have time this here; we write articles. And I know that you hop IP's: don't, and drop it. You may appeal this when you are ready to make contributions instead of continual, time-wasting baseless accusations. No, don't repeat that "you're not accusing": I don't have time for doublespeak. Awickert (talk) 03:13, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

To answer your question though: checkuser would be a place to start. But you'll have to and build up a case in order to try that. Awickert (talk) 03:16, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I made no legal threats against you. You are the one making personal accusations, not me.

I asked you if you were employed by BP. Under Wikipedia guidelines I have every right to ask if you have a conflict of editorial interest.

If you can't tell the difference between a question and an accusation that's your problem.

I owe you no apologies-- I asked you a legitimate question.

Wikipedia guidelines say I can ask anyone that question. Especially considering current events, it's a very reasonable question to ask.

75.166.179.110 (talk) 05:10, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

You said "Please be aware that a false answer could easily be revealed later by a criminal fraud investigation or a civil investigation" on his talk page. Any reasonable person would call that a veiled legal threat and it's going too far. Please stop being so aggressive and unreasonable about this: there is no conspiracy by BP to slant this article. Enough time has been wasted on this issue, please try to improve the article and stop being a distraction. TastyCakes (talk) 14:10, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

To answer the IP's question - For the sake of argument we will assume that BP employees are editing the article. But, for every editor who is a BP employee, there are thousands who aren't. As Wikipedia works on consensus, any addition or deletion of material that breaches WP:NPOV will be countered by those thousands of other editors. In other words, it's not likely to be a big problem. NPOV means we record good stuff and bad stuff. For example, we don't apportion blame; but if blame is found by an enquiry or court of law, we report that fact.

The vote rigging issue has been flagged up at WP:ANI, and will be borne in mind when it comes to closing the RM. All editors' history can be checked, and editors who have few contributions or none out of the topic may find that their views are discounted by the closing admin. Mjroots (talk) 07:15, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Checkuser investigations are not supposed to be fishing expeditions. But even if somebody does one, biased editors are more likely to be stockholders than employees, and stockholders can live anywhere. Thundermaker (talk) 13:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Call for re-vote with disclosure requirement posted:

Thanks for following up on this. Is it possible for admins to ask each voter whether or not they have an oil company affiliation?

Or alternately, could a general requirement be posted that each voter must disclose any oil company affiliation before voting.

In the second case, I suggest doing a second vote so that everyone can see the disclosure requirement first.

75.166.179.110 (talk) 17:05, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Both of those suggestions are unworkable, unreasonable and unnecessary. And as for redoing the vote, that is just silly: it is obvious that consensus is against renaming it as you would like. The name makes sense as it is now, please stop wasting our time. TastyCakes (talk) 17:12, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I must reluctantly agree. While we assume good faith, the evidence is mountng that this IP is here merely to promote their POV. There are numerous violations of policy, and gentle replies have not worked. A 24 hour block has now been tried by another admin. Andrewa (talk) 16:16, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Casualties

{{editsemiprotected}} under the list of casualties from the original blast you should remove "Jason Weise, 24, Yorktown, TX" and replace it with "Blair Manuel,56, Eunice, Louisiana" -- Edit request from Slinxxx, 26 May 2010

Slinxxx (talk) 22:58, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source for this information? Why would "Jason Weise, 24, Yorktown, TX" need to be removed, at any rate? Would it not suffice simply to add any other casualties (assuming they can be verified)? Intelligentsium 23:10, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Corrected. Source is Anna M. Tinsley (2010-05-21). "Gulf oil spill: Remembering Deepwater Horizon's dead"

Fort Worth Star Telegram. http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/05/21/94649/remembering-deepwater-horizons.html#ixzz0p2hV2SY4

I object to recent removal of the names of the victims by another user and uncited mention of 2010-05-25 memorial service, using same reference, as latter dated 2010-05-21. Reverted. These names are already being cited in testimony and it is not only of human interest and decency but of relevancy as to who they were. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 06:44, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Done At present Star Telegram source above only lists 10 names. Found better source. Added missing name. Changed ref to completely accurate one, documenting survivors' concerns that the victims have been forgotten; cross-referenced names with official memorial site, which includes obituaries.. Paulscrawl (talk) 10:53, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

BP (formerly British Petroleum) & Casualties

Is there any opposition to removing the "(formerly British Petroleum)" from the lead. No mention of British Petroleum is made in the main text so IMO I see no reason to include it in the lead.--Labattblueboy (talk) 23:55, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

BP is (or was) British Petroleum. As I interpret it, this explanation is given so that readers more familiar with the older appellation will know that BP, from there onward refers to British Petroleum. Thus there is no need to mention it further in the article as it has already been explained in the lead section, in a similar fashion to an uncommon term being defined. Intelligentsium 00:21, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that was indeed the point. Cgingold (talk) 01:24, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Names of the 11 Men Who Died The main page: The 11 men were killed in the explosion were: Jason Anderson, 35, Midfield, Texas; Dale Burkeen, 37, Philadelphia, Mississippi; Donald Clark, 34, Newellton, Louisiana; Stephen Curtiss, 39, Georgetown, Louisiana; Gordon Jones, 28, Baton Rouge, Louisiana; Roy Wyatt Kemp, 27, Jonesville, Louisiana; Karl Klepping, 38, Natchez, Mississippi; Dewey Revette, 48, State Line, Mississippi; Shane Roshto, 22, Franklin County, Mississippi; Adama Weise, 24, Yorktown, Texas; and Jason Weise, 24, Yorktown, Texas. [51]

"The 11 men were killed in the explosion were:" change to "The 11 men killed in the explosion were:"

The names are not correct in the main page. Here is the list. Blair Manuel, 56, Shane Roshto, 22, Roy Wyatt Kemp, 27, Jason Anderson, 35, Stephen Curtis, 39, Dewey Revette, 48, Adam Weise, 24, Gordon Jones, 28 Aaron Dale Burkeen, 37, Donald Clark, 49 and Karl Kleppenger, 38. --ArishiaNishi (talk) 00:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. In my edit summary, I noted the very strange coincidence of two men having the same last name and age and asked if they were fraternal twin brothers. It would be great if you would go ahead and insert the correct name yourself. Cgingold (talk) 01:27, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

♥ I don't have edit privileges for the main page. --ArishiaNishi (talk) 03:09, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Corrected. See "Casualties" section above. Paulscrawl (talk) 07:12, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Done Added missing name. Changed ref to completely accurate one, documenting survivors' concerns that the victims have been forgotten; cross-referenced names with official memorial site, which includes obituaries. Paulscrawl (talk) 10:49, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Diagram/photos of the actual leak

I've seen animations on TV of the blowout preventer sitting on top of the sea floor with oil leaking out the top, but I've also seen video of oil spewing from a broken pipe that appears to be lying horizontally on the sea floor. Is it possible to get an accurate diagram or photo of the actual accident site showing how the equipment and piping is actually arranged? (especially a before-and-after) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.151.71.18 (talk) 14:37, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

As I understand it, the main leak is from the riser, which is the pipe you mentioned. There are (or were) several holes in the riser where oil was gushing out of. One of the holes may have been close to the BOP (this diagram shows it that way, but if it was missing the "pipe" entirely I suspect the image you saw was just a simplification (or mistake). TastyCakes (talk) 15:50, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Article size

Is anyone getting at all concerned with the article size. It currently stands at 117K, which a bit large. Any suggestions at cutting down the size a bit? --Labattblueboy (talk) 14:54, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree, it is somewhat big. But if it can no longer be cleaned up and whatnot (thus, all information possible is included), then it is what it is. Venku Tur'Mukan (talk) 17:27, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Notes for inline refs are certainly needed (though dated ones need updates), but bloat of redundant References and External links sections can certainly be culled, if not eliminated altogether. Also, a Timeline section or Infobox might be helpful. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 22:57, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

If it is too big, then maybe it can be split. -- Wavelength (talk) 23:01, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Split or let the article grow is the right answer rather than deleting useful and helpful material. Labattblueboy removed relevant material with this edit saying that the article was too large in his edit summary. I made the edit that added the visual aids and think they are an important part of this complex story. Since I made the edit adding some of the information which was removed, I thought I'd ask folks here to weigh in on the removal of this material. I am open to the idea that maybe not all of the information in the references section needs to be there, but I believe strongly that the powerful visual and reference aids that are being produced by reputable sources to convey what is happening below the surface should be a part of this article. Theflyer (talk) 00:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Considering that this is the largest oil disaster in U.S. history, no the article is not too big at all, and should even grow larger as the disaster continues to unfold. Sub-articles may need to be created, to handle the growth, but there is no need to shrink the overall content.67.41.144.20 (talk) 01:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Making sub-articles is the right way to handle it, not chopping the article back.

Possible sub-article that could grow over time out of this "main article"--

1) Civil or criminal investigations of spill (both have been discussed on all the major news outlets).

2) Environmental impact studies (the impacted area is enormous and the issues will be complex)

3) Cultural impact-- Today MSNBC did an article on the possible devastation of Cajun and Creole cultures (especially in the Bayou country) due to the disaster.

4) Clean-up. This will continue to be massive and is expected to take 10 years or more. Likely this will eventually need it's own sub-article as well.

All of this supports the fact that this is a subject that should not be cut-back, but should rather be accommodated by additional sub-articles as needed.

The article about the worst oil disaster in U.S. oil history should not be shrunk into a brief or an abstract.--67.41.144.20 (talk) 01:28, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Several sections of this article should be trimmed by using summary style. Right now some sections look like an online news reporting, which Wikipedia is definitely not. Beagel (talk) 04:17, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Entirely agree.--Labattblueboy (talk) 04:56, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed this page goes on and on. Consequences, for example, should be summarised and maybe have its own page too. Same with Volume and extent of oil spill. You don't need a section the size of a normal article on that! --Half Price (talk) 15:59, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

• Any thought about splitting the explosion details for the article and moving them to a new article, possibly Deepwater Horizon explosion. Thoughts? --Labattblueboy (talk) 19:55, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

agree -- Books, and even encyclopedias, will be written about this catastrophe. Let Wikipedia be the resource. I hate to see highly relevant and damning testimony, including telling quotations (when especially apt) chopped ("summarized"). Make some separations, please, and let's keep focused on incorporating into the sub-articles the emerging facts from the the ongoing investigations, which well might deserve their own articles, if truth be told. Paulscrawl (talk) 12:50, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I strongly agree with Paulscrawl. Gandydancer (talk) 15:07, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Another section that can easily go to where it belongs with a one-sentence wikilinked mention: Atlantis Oil Field safety practices Paulscrawl (talk) 13:38, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Referencing and citations

I think it's about time we talked about taking a standardized approach to referencing. Having some citations in the notes and some in the reference section is unmanageable in identifying unused references. My suggestion is that we employ only inline notes, as that makes up the majority of the references present. Thoughts? --Labattblueboy (talk) 00:31, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree as I noted above on previous suggestion re: article size: if not deemed citable as inline Notes, most such links not worth wasted space in References section. That's what Google or Lexis/Nexis is for; literally tens of thousands of articles could be so listed References: do the work of incorporating citable Notes in article or please don't bloat article with undigested References. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 02:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Oppose to this extent: some frequently updated, albeit not necessarily cited agency or specific issue home page sites, will be convenient to have at hand, given local needs of those most vitally concerned and inevitability of years'-long studies and investigations. Suggest References be restricted to such sites' home pages. Beyond the obvious US govt. sites, a very comprehensive source (22 pages as of 2010-05-25) of such sites and contact information is available at the Gulf Alliance Educational Consortium (I have no personal, academic, business, nor governmental affiliation). This could be well adapted into a References table, serving both BP victims as well as Wikipedia relevancy and bandwidth. See Gulf States Information & Contacts for Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill -- Paulscrawl (talk) 02:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

• I have completed the folding in. I have identified them through their various stages (I broke it into 4 parts, with a couple error corrections after - starting at 364618290 and ending at 364624402) should the wish be to return to previous format in the future.--Labattblueboy (talk) 08:03, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Great work! Now the work begins of holding External links to this standard: should this external link not be contextualized as an inline reference? If not, why link at all? Is this a truly important reference site of comparable import to this article itself?

On these criteria, I've added above external link and may add some more from that source Paulscrawl (talk) 11:44, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Cuba

Some scanty news on talks with Cuba: [6]

Not addressed in this: if the oil spill ruins Cuban fishing and beaches, is BP required to pay reparations? Is BP allowed to pay reparations? Wnt (talk) 03:16, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Interesting topic. My personal interpretation of the embargo law would be that BP is prohibited from any transfer of wealth to Cuba, even if they admit responsibility. But we need a WP:RS talking about it in order to add it to the article. Thundermaker (talk) 13:07, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

@Thundermaker.... interesting, but that doesn’t take into account the fact that BP’s parent company is British, which perhaps allows Cuba to make its own litigation against the company and maybe exempts it from the embargo. curious that the only thing that dictates what BP has to do for Cuba is an American law Scuwat (talk) 20:47, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Some more random refs: [7][8] [9] [10][11] Very little info per inch, though.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that this well belongs to BP America, a subsidiary of BP. (see [12]) While apparently they share funds enough that British investors don't differentiate the two, I have a suspicion that when push comes to shove, BP is going to say that the liability is owed by BP America, and BP America isn't allowed to pay. But I haven't found any source taking the remotest stab in this direction. Wnt (talk) 06:36, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Allegations of workers kept in seclusion/isolation

why is this not included? http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/20100521/sc_ynews/ynews_sc2191 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.23.150.9 (talk) 10:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

This was already discussed (archived discussion). Beagel (talk) 15:56, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Nobody objected to including it 10 days ago (short archive cycle!), but nobody added it either. If you want it added, write it up into a paragraph with refs and post it here with an {{editsemiprotected}} tag and instructions saying exactly where you think it should be inserted. Transocean's denial should be covered in the same paragraph. Thundermaker (talk) 16:16, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

This was added at some point, but seems it was removed from the current version. Beagel (talk) 16:26, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I removed it while copy editing the POV text from the Litigation section. I can reinsert it without much trouble but I'm not sure where it should go, it doesn't really fit in the Litigation section. Thoughts.--Labattblueboy (talk) 19:00, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I wondered what happened to that, too. It would not have gone unnoticed if you hadn't folded it into a large edit without noting it in your edit summary. Please slow down & avoid folding multiple significant edits into one large edit -- especially when passages like this are being deleted. This also makes for better edit summaries, which would permit the rest of us to follow what you're doing more easily and with some assurance that we're not missing something significant. As you're well aware, this is not the first time this issue has come up -- and I just spent 15-20 minutes (and a lot of unwanted aggravation) hunting down the edit that had moved the Investigations section back to where it had been before I moved it to a more appropriate location -- again, because you made no mention of it in your edit summary. (I was sure it must have been some other editor!) Please take this more seriously. Cgingold (talk) 22:23, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

PS - I've been meaning to ask you, what does "ce" mean. It strikes me as a generic substitute for a meaningful edit summary. Cgingold (talk) 22:31, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Copy edit. I feel my summaries are more than sufficent and I am by no means hiding my activity. There is unfortunately not enough space to describe the heinous amount of copy editing to maintain a summary style for this article. Before criticizing my editing so harshly, it best that you first examine your editing behaviour. The movement or creation of entire sections without broader consultation is no more appropriate. I'm not sure what you are talking about regarding the Investigation section, I wasn't the one who moved it.--Labattblueboy (talk) 03:08, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Creating new sections is entirely appropriate, and I encourage all to do so without feeling the need to discuss them first. I did it myself in this article at least once, maybe more. It is inevitable that new sections be made for an article to grow, and it is impossible to discuss them until after they are made. But it is easier to discuss deletions before they are made. (This is a general comment, and I haven't examined your particular edits) Wnt (talk) 06:41, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I noticed it was missing, but decided to wait for comment from other more experienced editors, and when there was no comment I decided it must not be newsworthy for this page. As a less experienced editor, I find Cgingold's edits much easier to follow than Labttblueboy's edits. For example, I noticed that Rep Markey's strong statement re BP and his remark that they have used a low figure of the flow rate to lessen their liability were deleted with only this remark: "ce, converts, merge para., ref work". Gandydancer (talk) 07:06, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry if you find my edits difficult to follow. I have started expanding my details a bit further. If they remain an issue please return to my attention.--Labattblueboy (talk) 07:58, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

First and by far most important, I want to say that your new & improved edit summaries are much appreciated. I realize it takes a little more work -- in fact, I know it first hand -- but it is well worth the added effort because transparency in editing is hugely important, especially in an article like this. Second, please be aware that I have, in fact, held back on criticizing your efforts as I am well aware (trust me) that trimming excess verbiage can be a rather thankless task. But (as I said to another editor) it needs to be done with a scalpel, not a meat cleaver.

Lastly, I assure you I did not just imagine the edit where you moved the Investigations section. As I already said (but it bears repeating), I truly did not think that you were the one who had moved it -- because I was sure you would have mentioned it in one of your edit summaries. So I was really shocked when, at long last, I discovered that it had been moved in THIS EDIT, with the following edit summary: return to "thought to be largest spill", discussion started on talk page to ensure consensus that this indeed the case. I'm sure you can understand my dismay (to put it mildly) at discovering what had transpired. (I see from your edit summary that you have now moved that section to a slightly different location, which I am okay with.) Well, I guess that about covers it... Cgingold (talk) 09:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Now under Casualties and rescue efforts (end of 1st para), still seems a bit out of place but better suited than it was before.--Labattblueboy (talk) 07:55, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Coordinate error

{{geodata-check}}

The coordinates need the following fixes: 28° 44′ 12.01″ N, 88° 23′ 13.78″ W coordinates are incorrect, this places the rig 330 miles SW of where the decimal coordinates are.

28.73667, -88.38716 are far closer to actual location. News stories claim the depth is around 5000 feet , this matches up with these coordinates. The other set are in 10,000 feet of water.

75.34.58.84 (talk) 19:50, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The decimal coordinates that you say are closer appear to be the ones being used in the article, and were in place before you made the foregoing post. I'm not sure where you got the DMS coords, but I don't see anything to correct here, so I'm deactivating the {{geodata-check}} tag. If there's still an error that we're missing, please explain it more completely and remove the "tlc" prefix from the tag to reactivate it. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 14:45, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Supplement - Okay, figured it out. The coordinates in the article are correct or very close to being correct. You're being taken to the wrong place, probably, because you're clicking on the Google Earth "Open" link in GeoHack. Google Earth (and occasionally Google Maps) sometimes do not interpret GeoHack requests correctly. If you'll use the "w/ meta-data" Google Earth link instead of the "Open" link, it will almost always work correctly. Better yet, use Wikimapia, Bing, or Acme. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 14:56, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

relief methods

Shouldn't Top kill , Junk shot , Top hat dome , etc be made into articles? Top kill currently redirects here. 76.66.193.224 (talk) 22:20, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Top kill is now an article. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:32, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Numbers fail basic sanity check

From the article:

The spill is now thought to have eclipsed the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill as the largest in US history.[17] Estimates of the total amount of oil spilled range from 19,000,000 barrels (800,000,000 US gallons; 3.0×109 litres) to 39,000,000 barrels (1.6×109 US gallons; 6.2×109 litres).[18]

This is probably a mistake, as it fails a basic sanity check. Even at a likely overestimated 100,000 barrels/day (far above government figures), it would take 190 days to spill the minimum 19,000,000 barrels. A check of the source cited suggests that the 19,000,000 to 39,000,000 figures are probably gallons, not barrels. Certainly, one of the two figures must be wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.184.95 (talk) 03:04, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I came here to say this, those numbers could possibly be correct. The number in the cited source is 18 million gallons total. Not anywhere near the stated 800 million to 1.6 billion gallons of oil. That is insane. Reportingsjr (talk) 03:54, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done I checked the source and it should be in gallons, not barrels. I will quickly address that. --Labattblueboy (talk) 04:31, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

seafood safety

NOAA publications about seafood safety after an oil spill. This could be used in the relevant part of the article. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 23:06, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

oil zine

Per http://www.upstreamonline.com/live/article216214.ece it sounds like they have stopped drilling the second kill well. That site looks like a better source of info than general news media too. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 03:11, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

All name change arguments!

please note the EXISTING RENAME SECTIONS: before starting a new one

Two formal discussions for rename:

• Requested renaming and move
• Proposed name change

The inclusion of "BP" in the title:

• Rename it NOW please
• Added NPOV...
• BP Oil Spill
• Request to rename article to BP oil spill of 2010

Concerns over interested parties trying to spin/manipulate the article/renames:

• 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
• 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
• Vote Rigging? (Do any of these voters work for BP?)

Among others. Most posts mix argument over "spill" vs "blowout" and including "BP" or not (these being separate issues) with posting their preferred combination.

Could we try to keep it some way organized? - Skullers (talk) 10:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

BP Oil Spill

This article should be named "BP Oil Spill". That is the name that President Obama, who is funded by the oil industries, and other officials are calling it. The media, which is also funded through advertising by the oil industry, has opted for the term "Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill". But make no mistake the oil spill is a BP oil spill. The article should be named as such. 66.230.102.117 (talk) 20:38, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Not even going to justify stupidity / trolling with an intelligent response 87.211.50.236 (talk) 16:28, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

How can this article be named anything BUT "BP Oil Spill." Nobody in the media or government anywhere in the world is referring to it as "Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill." Has British Petroleum's PR firm successfully infiltrated Wikipedia? Whatever happened to objectivity? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.248.180.183 (talk) 22:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

If you could bother to scroll down, you will see there's already more than one discussion on this. Let's keep this under three sections per page. Skullers (talk) 09:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Geyser or Spill

A spill comes from above via a cup or a vessel like Exxon-Valdez, on the other hand, a geyser comes from below gushing from the ground like Yellowstone National Park. I know this is just semantics but they matter, just curious!69.137.120.81 (talk) 01:41, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I've thought from the beginning that "spill" was kind of an odd term to be using in this case. But what do the sources call it? I did see one reference today that called it a "gusher", which is probably closer to the mark. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:49, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Oil spill is the correct term. Gandydancer (talk) 10:47, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

"Oil spill" is, I agree, as others noted above, a term that many might misinterpret and in that sense misleading but as Gandydancer notes, is still the commonly used term. A more precise wording might be "underwater spill" or a spill involving an "underwater leak" which would give a more more accurate picture than using the traditional term "Spill" without modifiers. Perhaps something along those lines might be used in the article.Harel (talk) 21:36, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not technically a "spill", as it's bubbling up. But if that's what the media are calling it, then that's what it is. (It wouldn't be the first time the media have mislabeled something.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:29, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Oil leaking from a tanker is not techincally spilling out either - it is leaking or gushing out through a rupture in the structure that was confining it. Gandydancer (talk) 22:43, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Unless it's above the waterline. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:48, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Nope. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/spill Gandydancer (talk) 01:45, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Right, it's a spill whether above or below the waterline, as per "to cause or allow to run or fall from a container". In the case of an offshore drilling platform, the "container" would be the platform's drilling system, I suppose. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:25, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I would consider the container to be the earth. Gandydancer (talk) 13:27, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Oil spill is the NOT correct term. The official term, even in government documents, for this type of event is BLOWOUT. Someone else provide a reference, I don't remember where I downloaded the oil spill response plan documents from (it may have been the huffington post). I have the document, but not the source.

Alexhiggins732 (talk) 23:41, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

"Spill" is definitely misleading, since it implies a finite container, and thus grossly understates the case - and what a coincidence that we've all taken to calling it that, much to the convenience of the corporate perpetrators? Anyway, "blowout" has the dual virtues of being both more technically correct and more viscerally descriptive of this phenomenon, which is a kind of crude oil volcano. True, it's being commonly called a "spill", but if we make "Deepwater Horizon oil spill" a redirect, we can be sure that anyone seeking information about the disaster under that name will find this article. I wouldn't presume to make the change myself, since this is not my field, but I wish that qualified persons would consider doing so. MdArtLover (talk) 03:38, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I support the use of the term "Blowout." Spill connotes a predetermined amount of volume less than or equal to the amount of the container. If the earth qualifies as a container, then so should the ocean; we might as well call it a "transfer." User:es138 (talk) 12:00, 27 May 2010 (PST)

• Note that other articles on oil leaks are all titled as spill, including similar ones on platforms: Ixtoc I oil spill, Montara oil spill, 1969 Santa Barbara oil spill, and others that don't involve tankers or any type of container. Skullers (talk) 09:30, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Subjective "worst" claim

(see #23 "Edit Needed..."Largest Spill in US History""

Neutrality of article may be in question by citing Exxon Valdez as the "worst" oil spill in US history. Valdez leaked 37k tonnes of oil into Prince William Sound, but the Greenpoint, Brooklyn spill leaked somewhere between 55.2-97.4k. tonnes, and the Hawaiian Patriot spill leaked 109k tonnes. (Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oil_spills) While it may be argued that the Valdez spill caused more damage to coastline, damage to the Gulf Coast is being mitigated.

Oftenoptional (talk) 14:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Mitigated? Do the math! Nobody believes that a "mere" 5,000 barrels per day are leaking. Imagine a worse-case scenario and use the 70,000 figure, or even worse use the 100,000 figure as was suggested today by experts after they had seen the video. This is a heartbreaking ecological disaster, and a financial and emotional disaster for the people of the Louisiana coast who have suffered so much already. And just let us hope that this is not the last straw for the beautiful coral reefs that are already threatened by global warming and pollution Gandydancer (talk) 00:08, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Please try to remain objective. This is Wikipedia, not a grand jury trial. Things like "heartbreaking" and "suffering" play no role in the formation of this article. JettaMann (talk) 17:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

You misunderstand my point. I do not mean to downplay the severity of the current crisis, my concern is as to the accuracy of the article claiming that the Valdez spill was the worst spill in US history, when it was never the largest oil spill in that category.Oftenoptional (talk) 18:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

It's inappropriate to use the word "worst" in a Wikipedia article because the word means "most severe or serious." By what objective measure is one oil spill worse than another? It's possible a small spill in one locale may have a severe effect on one arguably important thing whereas a large mid-ocean spill may be deemed to be less serious by comparison. That's the opinion of a fellow who managed the native lands adjacent to the Exxon Valdez spill site a few years before the mishap. I am one of those who appreciate objective reporting. I also object to fear-mongering, hysteria and public clamor. //Don K. (talk) 07:21, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Being that BP is not a U.S. company, and given that the Ixtoc I was the largest spill in the Gulf of Mexico, "worst" is indeed a pointlessly subjective and, worse, unclear statement. The ecological damage has probably (or will likely, were the spill even to stop before June 2010) surpassed that of Ixtoc I in part due to barrier islands off Texas, not so in Louisiana. I am changing to "largest in U.S. territorial waters." Evaluation of ecological impacts should wait.

Mydogtrouble (talk) 01:42, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Objective fact is that the Exxon Valdez disaster has become the most commonly used benchmark against which to measure great oil spills. In that sense it is worth stating, for example, that the Deepwater Horizon spill is equivalent to x Exxon Valdez ships, in oil volume. Koen —Preceding undated comment added 14:24, 31 May 2010 (UTC).

Yes, but the common benchmark is the wrong one! ;<] Seriously, because Ixtoc I WAS serious, I believe the comparison should be made. As I write, it still is the one which dumped more oil into the Gulf than the DW spill currently has. Prior to the internet, Ixtoc I managed to vanish in the memory hole, and it should not be allowed to do so again. Mydogtrouble (talk) 22:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposed name change

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move to this particular location at this time. However, another rename proposal (to a different name) may certainly be pursued. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 15:41, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

---

Deepwater Horizon oil spill → BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill — I was already of the opinion that "BP" should be included in the name of the article - and now it's official: "BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill".

With the establishment of the National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling, I think we know with certainty the name that will go in the history books. So we may as well make the switch to the official name without delay.

I honestly can't imagine any serious objections to using this name, but for the sake of Wiki-procedure... now is the time to make your views known. Cgingold (talk) 05:38, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

In the interest of facilitating a clear-cut up-or-down decision on the name change I've proposed, I would like to request that we confine our remarks to the specified proposal and not consider any alternative names that various editors may favor. The only reason I went forward with this name-change proposal is purely because the US government has now bestowed an official name on this incident, not because I happen to agree that BP should be part of the name. (Sorry if I caused any inadvertent confusion on that point.) Cgingold (talk) 09:35, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

PLEASE ADD ALL COMMENTS TO THE APPROPRIATE SUB-SECTION BELOW

Agree

• I agree that this article should reflect the official name attributed to the incident. If other unofficial names are in common practice, they should be included, and follow the title in the "also known as format", with a redirect page in these names. This is my opinion of what would be proper.My76Strat (talk) 11:49, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
• Strongly Favor Can someone please ask voters if they work for BP? I can't believe the votes I am seeing. 75.166.179.110 (talk) 09:43, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
• Agree. I suspect that this will undergo several more name changes over the course of time, but the given reason seems sufficient to move the article now. I don't see any of the opposing votes engaging with the reasoning given in the move proposal. 187.143.14.132 (talk) 19:05, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
• Agree. The US goverment has indicatede BP is responsible for the Oil Spill/Blowout. BP has stated they will hold responsibility for the cleanup. Multiple Media sources are siting this as the BP Deepwater Horizon disaster. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WatchingDragon (talk • contribs) 19:53, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
• Agree. However, BP Gulf of Mexico spill might be even better as that is what BP is calling it. They use it on the site they are running google adds about: http://www.BP.com/GulfOfMexicoResponse Jeff Carr (talk) 21:11, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
• Agree. The title should reflect the official name. I also think that, at this point, leaving BP out of the the title violates NPOV. In addition, leaving BP out makes it harder to find this article through search engines. I therefore strongly agree with this renaming.--Emptytalk (talk) 12:58, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
• Agree. 174.101.224.248 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC).
• Strongly Agree Everyone knows this as BP.... even the US Gov. and media is calling it "BP Deepwater Horizon disaster" --Bakerboy448 (talk) 02:45, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
• Strongly Agree If the official, government approved name includes BP, then this should be included in the title. It also reflects the term used by the media. In response to the comments below opposing the name change - as BP has officially declared itself responsible for the incident, it would not be NPOV if BP was omitted from the title. --Geckoz rule (talk) 22:36, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
• Agree that current name is not O.K., but no need to add BP - everybody knows its BP. Something like Deepwater Horizon Gulf Oil Disaster would do better, with Gulf gusher added among the alternative names. Kokot.kokotisko (talk) 08:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
• Strongly Agree As is the case with the Exxon Valdez oil spill article, the company responsible for the spill should be included in the title. Though common knowledge, it still should remain labeled. I also agree with the above mentioned that not including 'BP' seems to be a violation of NPOV. diswiz (talk) 01:24, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. In case of the Exxon Valdez oil spill, Exxon Valdez was the ship name.Beagel (talk) 08:59, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Disagree

• Oppose. The name is misleading because it suggests that Deepwater Horizon was owned by BP. This is not correct. In case of the Exxon Valdez oil spill, Exxon Valdez was the ship name. It was also discussed previously that 'blowout' is more correct term than 'oil spill'. I also think that the name should have a geographical indication. Therefore, my preferences are:

1. Macondo blowout
2. Macondo oil spill
3. Deepwater Horizon oil spill (the current title)
4. 2010 Gulf of Mexico blowout
5. 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill

Beagel (talk) 08:59, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I propose: "Deepwater Horizon oil blowout". 'Blowout' is unclear without the modifying word 'oil' (just as in some above-suggested titles it's called an 'oil spill', never simply a 'spill'. 'Deepwater Horizon' is the unique name of the vessel destroyed in the incident, and is well-recognized by anyone who's heard even vaguely of the incident; therefore '2010' is unnecessary as a modifier, as is any reference to Macondo or the Gulf of Mexico. And calling it by the name of the vessel doesn't associate it with BP. The name of any company whatsoever is omitted - like 'Valdez' without 'Exxon'; therefore, Beagel's first objection is not really an issue. MdArtLover (talk) 13:59, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Clarification. The ship name was Exxon Valdez, not just Valdez. The name of the rig is Deepwater Horizon, not BP Deepwater Horizon. Therefore, having fragment of the title as 'BP Deepwater Horizon' is misleading. So, there are options to use the rig name or BP in the title, but not in the way that 'Deepwater Horizon' follows directly 'BP'.Beagel (talk) 16:00, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

As of suggestion by User:MarylandArtLover, I prefer Deepwater Horizon oil blowout compared to the current title.Beagel (talk) 16:18, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. Firstly, the official name is almost irrelevant. Secondly, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, so even if we know with certainty the name that will go in the history books, that's also irrelevant. If it can be shown that the common name is already the proposed article title, that would be different. Andrewa (talk) 14:33, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose I think the current name strikes a good balance as a descriptive name. The media commonly, and the public in general, refer to the event as an oil spill... even if blowout might be more technically correct it really is a case of splitting hairs (in short I also Oppose Deepwater Horizon oil blowout) As noted by Andrewa, the rig's not BP Deepwater Horizon, nor is BP the only party involved. So to I have some NPOV issues with singling them out. Frankly, I thought we had this all resolved in the last name change dicussion.--Labattblueboy (talk) 19:05, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose per Labattblueboy. Kittybrewster ☎ 19:16, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

• This proposed name change adds "BP" to the current title. I oppose that; several companies were involved, BP being only the largest. However, I came to the talk page today to propose a name change. The phrase "oil spill" is no longer correct, and gives people the wrong impression about what is going on. According to the recent NearShore Surface Oil Forecast from NOAA [13] the size and scope of the situation in the gulf is no long just a "spill". Each square on that map is approximately 4900 square miles. Realistic estimates put the size at 10 times the Exxon Valdez now, and it's still flowing. The NOAA.gov page on deepwaterhorizon.noaa.gov now uses the phrase "Deepwater Horizon Incident, Gulf of Mexico". It's now clear the effects will be far larger than the Gulf, and with the addition of dispersants, and their toxic effects, the result will be far greater than just oil spilling. Unless something dramatic changes in the activities to stop the flow of oil, this will be the greatest environmental disaster in the US in a century. I'd suggest "Deepwater Horizon Oil Disaster, Gulf of Mexico", or something similar that removes the phrase "oil spill". Jmd2121 (talk) 22:17, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose neither the current name nor the proposed one is the WP:COMMONNAME. 70.29.210.155 (talk) 03:50, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose The current name is unambiguous and uncontroversially correct except for using the popular term "spill" instead of the industry jargon "blowout". For the record, I am not involved in the industry. Thundermaker (talk) 15:07, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose The current name is factually accurate. As noted by others, the rig was neither owned nor operated by BP. The oil lease was BPs, but a contractor (Transocean) did the drilling. I would guess that the legal challenges for responsibility will play out in the courts for several years but our job in WP is not to try to outguess that process. I'll also note, for the record that I have no relationship to BP or Transocean or the US government whatsoever, whether by employment, contracting, stock ownership, etc., except that I do pay taxes to the US government. N2e (talk) 23:18, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - It sounds like POV-pushing, and besides there's already a redirect from BP oil spill. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:33, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - Adding BP to the title sounds like a political move by the government (of which I am an employee in the DoD). Wikipedia need to be Neutral Point of View. The name of the company has never been included in an oil spill in the past. The only exception is the famous 1989 oil spill, and the Exxon corporation had the misfortune of naming their ship Exxon Valdez after their company and an Alasken port. Also BP does NOT own the Deepwater Horizon, Transocean does. - Aalox (Say Hello • My Work) 04:32, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
• Agree that current name is not O.K., but no need to add BP - everybody knows its BP. Something like Deepwater Horizon Gulf Oil Disaster would do better, with Gulf gusher added among the alternative names. Kokot.kokotisko (talk) 08:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Adding BP to the title breaks NPOV. Title is fine as it is. Mjroots (talk) 07:02, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose May as well have Transocean in the title. Note that none of the other articles on oil spills have a party or company name in the title. Skullers (talk) 07:53, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Great illustration in the Economist Magazine

showing lines connected for a top kill

BOP broken riser and top kill context

Could somebody replicate the excellent graphic in the Economist Magazine and put it here?

http://media.economist.com/images/images-magazine/2010/21/ST/201021STC294.gif

from the article: http://www.economist.com/science-technology/displaystory.cfm?story_id=16160853

58.179.137.101 (talk) 05:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I am starting to create a few simple diagrams of a blowout preventer stack at Commons:Category:Blowout preventers, derived roughly from various sources. I have included two at the right here.

-84user (talk) 22:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC) (I have just uploaded File:Subsea blowout preventer stack riser mud.svg as a context diagram, see right)-84user (talk) 01:14, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Good work 84user! FYI, there are some pretty interesting illustrations that have been added to the external links section of the Blowout preventer article. For example, this one, added only today, gives a great representation to the complexity (and size) of a subsea blowout preventer. Cheers. N2e (talk) 02:40, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Nice work, 84user! Paulscrawl (talk) 12:59, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

There are now some improved larger context versions, with numbers only and with larger font sizes, see below.

• 
  Large context numbered instead of text
• 
  Large context with largest practical font size

-84user (talk) 18:43, 30 May 2010 (UTC)