Talk:Deepwater Horizon oil spill/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 14

Economics

In the 6 July 2010 Wall Street Journal NEIL KING JR. and KEITH JOHNSON reported: " ... the government noted that the oil and gas from approved exploration and drilling projects had a combined value of $7.65 billion. Among the existing leases, the petition noted, was the March 2008 Lease Sale #206. That deal included BP's acquisition, for $34 million, of the acreage encompassing the Macondo well." To estimate an approximate value of leaked oil, can one multiply the current price of a barrel of crude oil times the number of barrels already leaked (range given in Wiki article as 35,000 to 60,000 barrels per day) times the number of days the leakage (as of 6 July, 77 days)? This would give a range for the value of the leaked oil to be between $US 194 and $US 333 million. Taking into account BPs expenses (not stated in the press), is $US 34million a fair price for US taxpayers whose government owns the oil? —Preceding unsigned comment added by JMartens (talk • contribs) 18:27, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

How much is a barrel?

The first occurrence of the term "barrel" has this: { { convert|35000|to|60000|oilbbl|USgal m3||abbr=none } }, which renders as: "35,000 to 60,000 barrels (1,500,000 to 2,500,000 US gallons; 5,600 to 9,500 cubic metres)". So that visitors don't need a pocket calculator, a link to barrel is necessary somehow. Please help. Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:49, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done I explained in my article edit summary just now what I did to remedy this issue. MichaelWestbrook (talk) 11:45, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Splendid! Thank you. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:52, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Added 'link input' parameter to the firs template to create a link to barrel. Beagel (talk) 12:33, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea what that means, but now it just goes to Barrel_(unit) (which redirects to Barrel (volume), instead of the appropriate section. I think visitors, upon clicking the link, want to see exactly how much a barrel of oil is, and not just go to the top of the article about different barrel sizes. I respectfully suggest that it was better before. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:43, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Added relevant request here. regards. Beagel (talk) 13:15, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I didn't make a request. I just said that it was better before. There seems to be a communication problem here. I'm just going to change it back to MichaelWestbrook's edit. When you figure out how to handle the template, please change it to what you like. Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:33, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

It was me who made the request to update the linking parameter of oil barrel unit in the template. I just kindly informed about this request at this talk page as the issue was raised here.

I think that it would be better if all these units are converted, so I prefer that the template would not be removed. Beagel (talk) 14:49, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I see. Thank you for informing us about the request. It is appreciated. Just to be clear, the request is to make the link to the subsection of the barrel article, and not just to the top of the article, right? If so, great.

I like the conversion template because the news refers to both gallons and barrels. Maybe the best thing is to manually add the conversion to barrels in the first occurrence until the template matter is sorted out. That way, visitors get conversions and a link to oil barrel. What do you think? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:49, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The linking parameter of the {{Convert}} links now oilbbl with barrel (volume)#Oil_barrel instead of barrel (volume).Beagel (talk) 17:14, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Anna I think that's a great idea. That is something that has always bothered me about this article. I am usually against any suggestions that an article needs to be dumbed down, but this is a little different. Even when I was reading some parts several times a day, I never got over the irritation/confusion with so darn many numbers to sift through. Gandydancer (talk) 05:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Forgive me, but I am going to be rather blunt. This article is not a clinic on mathematics or measurement conversions. This article is about an oil spill. If one wants to learn conversions, there are resources to do so, and we can provide such resources with wikilinks. If one wants to learn about this oil spill, we as editors need to provide concise information. 63 or 64 templates converting barrels to gallons and cubic metres or miles to kilometers, etc., etc., is a bit overdoing political correctness, IMO. Parentheses have their place and purpose in proper grammar. Let's use them when necessary, please. MichaelWestbrook (talk) 07:01, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Is there consensus that only barrels as spill units should be used? If yes, all units should be replaced. If not, I would like to ask not to remove conversion templates before consensus for this is established. There was a proposal to organize different estimates in the form of table. Maybe we should start with this? Beagel (talk) 16:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

No consensus from me. I am fine with both barrels and gallons. But, the article still has barrels with gallons in parentheses in some instances, and the other way around in other instances. That might need consensus. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:38, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I posted this in another section, but will post here also. I see no reason to continually use parentheses to convert. We are generally speaking of big numbers here, thus barrel seems the way to go rather than gallons. Plus, some sections have so many numbers already, why add more? I feel that the frequent conversions makes the reading more difficult and does nothing for understanding the information. Gandydancer (talk) 10:29, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Primary unit of measurement & bbl

I see "barrels (gallons)" and "gallons (barrels)" throughout the article. Can we pick a primary unit of measurement?

Also, can "bbl" be replaced with "barrel", or have a first occurrence link? (I had to look up "bbl" to be sure it meant barrel.) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:08, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I changed the "Removal" section using the linked "barrel" first and then changing all other mentions to just "barrel". I feel it makes the article much easier to read. Are there any objections? Gandydancer (talk) 09:55, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

This discussion is split between different sections which makes it harder to follow. The question is if there is a consensus or not to remove conversion templates for barrels. If that kind of consensus exists, it should be implemented through the whole article, not just in some section. Right now we have some sections providing conversion into gallons and cubic meters and some sections mentioning just barrels.

Using only barrels I see the problem that barrel says nothing to the most of readers. For Americans the common unit is a gallon, for Europeans liter or cubic meter. Beagel (talk) 10:10, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps most Americans use the gallon as a unit for gas and milk, but that does not suggest that they think of crude oil in gallons. And if they didn't know what a barrel of oil was, they most likely do by now, in the same way that in the very early days of this article the word "boom" was a new word to most people - but not any more! Gandydancer (talk) 10:52, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

RestoreTheGulf.gov takes over content & functions of deepwaterhorizonresponse.com, to be phased out in coming weeks

Added ref to U.S. Govt. section and External Link. Try to use RestoreTheGulf.com from now on in preference to DeepwaterHorizonResponse.com to minimize link rot. -- new official site includes links to relevant portions of data.gov and very cool mapping tool -- Paulscrawl (talk) 19:31, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Spill volume field in the infobox

Spill volume data provided in the infobox are calculate by multiplying a number of days since April 20 by flow rate of 100,000 barrels per day. This is misleading as official estimates which are used for the modeling are only up to 60,000 barrels per day. NOAA is using for a model of 90-day oil flow rate of 33,000 barrels per day – the net amount from the flow rate ceiling of 60,000 barrels per day (the lower bound is 35,000 barrels/day) minus the daily estimated amount being skimmed, burned, and/or collected by the Top Hat mechanism.[1] The infobox should be updated accordingly. Beagel (talk) 10:36, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done I've return the volume to the per day estimate. The total volume figure is can surely be classified as original research whereas the per day figure is not.--Labattblueboy (talk) 19:55, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, those calculations would be original research, however well informed. While it would indeed be ideal to have a regularly updated and official number for the total cumulative net spill volume to date, one which realistically takes into account both the variable rates over different periods of time as well allowances for recaptured oil (but not burnt, skimmed, weathered, or dispersed oil), but -- and granting NOAA's probabilistic model comes close in some regards to just this desiderata -- no such summary number exists in any secondary source I've run across yet. In particular, NOAA's assumptions and caveats make it clear that their probabilistic estimates serve a completely different purpose than the one we may seek for the Infobox. For the time being, the latest spill rate seems the best we can do. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 05:16, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

BP ready to switch caps

According to this news BP and US officials would decide in the coming days whether to switch caps at the wellhead. increase BP's siphoning capacity to 80,000 barrels per day; however, during interim time oil will leak uninterrupted. I think it is too early to add this to the article before official decision about changing the cap is made. Beagel (talk) 20:53, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

The new table

The new table is a step in the right direction. I suggest we try to get a lot of these sorts of figures into tables. Perhaps a few bar or line graphs for oil flow, etc. would look good and help visitors. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:00, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, this anon-IP contribution does possibly appear to be a small step in the direction of ultimately (hopefully) ultimately achieving WP:Summary style on this very complex, rapidly developing topic. Perhaps we might now consolidate the existing references into the table rather than presenting the same facts in both the text and table. Either way, the table is much easier to read as to these basic, well cited facts. ... Kenosis (talk) 09:33, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

A great improvement that could easily be further improved. If we name the references first mentioned in the preceding text, they can then be easily re-used in the table, with no added footnotes. Then the text may be summarized as a simple chronology, with only a few outstanding numbers. At least a few summary sentences covering the widely reported and notable differences amongst experts -- and by the same experts over the course of time -- are necessary, to enable quotation and paraphrase. The table structure I proposed way back was for a table formatted to highlight both the chronology and the varying numbers: |Date |Source | |High: (US/Metric) |Low: (US/metric)| which I think has the advantages of: a) highlighting chronological sequence foremost and b) enabling ready comparison via standardized numerical alignment, rather than losing alignment due to phraseology. Not all estimates were of High/Low nature; some were flat numbers, not ranges: put them in High as a default and we have a far more easily scanned structure, with the commas separating thousands right were they should be in all cases. Alternatively, and probably more useful for readers comparing rates in one particular unit of measure, have High and Low sub-columns as split cells under columns for Barrels, Gallons, and Metric. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 12:19, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Paul, it seems to be very good and comprehensive format you proposed. I hope there is no objections to this.Beagel (talk) 12:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I've taken a stab at it in my [Spill flow rate sandbox], but have hit a wall with a couple of pesky formatting snafus. Wikipedia table experts welcome to edit that page or offer a tip before I resort to doing it in HTML and abandon apparent Wikicode table limitations or interactions with template markup; I have exhausted either my patience or the online documentation for tables, to no avail. Take a peek and comment, please. I'll look at it again tonight, hopefully with some fresh eyeballs and insights. Thanks. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 18:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

'work 'and 'publisher' parameters of citation templates

Concerning the references to BBC, it is clear that the publisher is the BBC. At the same time, these news are produced by BBC News, but BBC News is not a publisher, BBC is. It seems appropriate to have both fields–'work 'and 'publisher'-in use. Beagel (talk) 10:59, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

"BP VP, Darryl Willis rebukes reports that BP is suspending claims in July"

http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/us/2010/07/09/jk.bp.darryl.willis.on.claims.cnn.html

LOL

somebody integrate this into the article, please.

I am a fisherman. I can't take this anymore.

What a load of CRAP.

MichaelWestbrook (talk) 03:45, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

is this a reliable source?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/vp/38175715#38175715 MichaelWestbrook (talk) 09:26, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Reliable Article?

Is this article reliable? http://www.seashepherd.org/news-and-media/news-100701-1.html They claim to have an aerial video of them flying over the oil spill, along with some photos. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.180.40.110 (talk) 09:28, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

The Sea Shepherds are fun to watch on TV but I'm not sure they constitute a reliable source. raseaC^{talk to me} 16:49, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

International Response

Excuse me if I'm blind, but where did the old section on the international response from other governments go? Benner9 (talk) 22:35, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Moved, without any discussion here, to Reactions to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill -- Paulscrawl (talk) 03:55, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Thats a bit lost... Americans trying to hold there national pride when they know they need help? ;) Benner9 (talk) 07:33, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Images

The images in the article do not cover the ecological impact very well. See this list of images for examples what should get into the article. -- JakobVoss (talk) 12:14, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

There are certainly many striking images, but not many are usable for reasons of both space and copyright. An article of this size and scope can have only one or perhaps two photos in the Ecological effects section -- and such images must not violate the Wikipedia Image Usage Policy. What image would you suggest as equal or superior to that of the oiled pelicans? Is it usable? See public domain image resources. Feel free to upload such a freely licensed or public domain photo (all photos taken by U.S. Govt. employees in the course of their work) to the category Deepwater Horizon oil spill on Wikimedia Commons so it might be used. Wikimedia Commons images for category "Deepwater Horizon oil spill"-- Paulscrawl (talk) 14:14, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

What is the oil on the image next to the opening paragraph?

The image to the opening paragraph is a bit confusing to me. It seems as though the oil is white on the satelite image, even though it is black in reality. Do satelite images make the oil look white, or is the white not actually the oil? Either way it should be clarified in the text below the image.--CoincidentalBystander (talk) 13:20, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Experts fear that the spill will result in an environmental disaster ...

ummm, i live in calgary, alberta, and i think i coulda safely 'put that one out there'.

... because it is appearing at the top of the article, an understatement like that tends to virtually eliminate credibility, regardless of the articles extent, comprehensiveness, or accuracy of information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.183.137.136 (talk) 17:24, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Totally agree. That must have been written months ago. 174.74.2.72 (talk) 06:55, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I changed the wording of this sentence to make clear that the spill already has an environmental impact. Beagel (talk) 07:12, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Is there any chance that this oil spill will run out before the entire ocean is covered with this oil? As an avid fish eater, I am concerned and would not be likely to resort to veganism if the fish were to go extinct. GVnayR (talk) 21:59, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

As an avid oxygen breather, I doubt I could even partly resort to anoxism if the ocean's algae were to go extinct. Huw Powell (talk) 02:37, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Area of oil spill way out of date

The area of the oil spill is given in the inset as something like 9,000 square miles. But that was as of May, and it's spread far beyond that by now. This animated map from the NY Times shows that it's now more like 50,000 square miles.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/05/27/us/20100527-oil-landfall.html?ref=us

Does anyone have a more precise *current* figure for the extent of the oil spill as of today? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.162.239.198 (talk) 13:15, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed a new map is needed as the current one is way out of date. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

But the oil will run out long before it covers the entire ocean, right? I know that the surviving fish will evolve and adapt to this new situation but I am hoping that this is capped long before it leaves the Gulf area and into places like the Carribbean, the Northern United States, Canada, and (god forbid) Europe where they have just gotten over the ash cloud months ago. GVnayR (talk) 22:02, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Expansion predictions

Expansion predictions sections needs cleanup and update. Two and half month after the spill started there is probably more fact-based information to replace speculations about the spill expansion which were not proved by reality. Beagel (talk) 22:23, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Many skimmers can't be used because they still leave more than 15 parts per million, which violates EPA rules.

The Wall St. Journal states:

"First, the Environmental Protection Agency can relax restrictions on the amount of oil in discharged water, currently limited to 15 parts per million. In normal times, this rule sensibly controls the amount of pollution that can be added to relatively clean ocean water. But this is not a normal time. Various skimmers and tankers (some of them very large) are available that could eliminate most of the oil from seawater, discharging the mostly clean water while storing the oil onboard. While this would clean vast amounts of water efficiently, the EPA is unwilling to grant a temporary waiver of its regulations."

This should be mentioned in the article.

71.182.215.12 (talk) 04:18, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

agreed. there probally doing that so people dont us a loop hole to be able to let filters on ships go to noting. 69.115.204.217 (talk) 02:41, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

This is a big issue locally on the Gulf Coast. I definitely agree that it should be covered. UB65 (talk) 16:01, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

The 15 ppm figure that the EPA is keeping to also managed to delay the start to the clean up operation... or at least according to this article it did. Though the more interesting part of it was regarding the influence of the Unions. http://www.financialpost.com/Avertible%20catastrophe/3203808/story.html Discojim (talk) 11:47, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

USSR non-military underwater nuclear explosions

Non-military underwater nuclear explosions which took place in USSR are well documented. There were underground explosions to prevent oil spills and number of underwater explosions to serve other needs. NY Times Article "Nuclear Option on Gulf Oil Spill? No Way, U.S. Says" cites so-called "atomic historian" Robert S. Norris, is clearly biased in saying that "that all the Soviet blasts were on land and never involved oil". Checkout this Mattew Simmons interview by Bloomberg, this article in the Canadian Telegraph-Journal. If you can uderstand russian, read this article, it is very comprehensive. Fabius byle (talk) 12:10, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Previously discussed in this article's archives. Matt Simmons' non-expert opinion on nuclear option can optionally be contained in a single comprehensive summary reference, as in the Reuter's roundup report cited below. Full details of not-so-relevant Soviet, and latter Russian, experience with nuclear devices used for gas wells and underwater tests (latter having no connection whatsoever with oil wells -- see Nuclear Explosions In The Ussr: The North Test Site Reference Material) -- are already in most relevant article, Nuclear Explosions for the National Economy, which links back to this article for findability; this article does have link to highly informative and self-sufficient NY Times article.

Overall, this section of the article is now highly disproportionate to its real importance for the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. The last two inaccurate sentences in particular, well summarized in the first referenced article in this section, could easily be cut with no loss, and some gain in accuracy.

The USSR successfully conducted a number of underground nuclear explosions to prevent oil spills in the past, and no radiation damage to the environment was reported.[150][151] USSR also conducted non-military underwater nuclear explosions.

If revised version of those two misleading sentences retained, replace their references with a better-balanced summary reference to the mixed reactions to the Soviet experience, by Reuters Moscow bureau, 2 July: Special Report: Should BP nuke its leaking well?. Note the quote by former Minister of Nuclear Energy Viktor Mikhailov: "I ended the program because I knew how worthless this all was ... Radioactive material was still seeping through cracks in the ground and spreading into the air. It wasn't worth it."

We need to cut this entire section down to its essentials: nuclear option was not seriously considered and proposal rejected, for reasons specific to international covenants and to the conditions of the Deepwater Horizon well itself -- and stop indulging in fruitless internet meme-generation. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 17:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Just in case you might want to know,

1. Water is a natural shield against radiation.
2. Crude oil is radioactive on itself. I don't have time to make calculations, but oil spill probably already caused many times more radiation damage to the environment than a small underwater nuclear explosion.
3. Worst case scenario of nuclear explosion, an underground blowout, must be considered. But scientists don't even have a chance to make proper calculations because America refuses to publish complete map of an oil field (in a sake of BP's interests?)! This is a crime against humanity.

I can't find any other reasons for keeping this information in secret other than political and economical interests. Don't let them fool you, this has nothing to do with environmental concerns. The reason of nuclear devices ruling out is what BP told you, not independent expertise.

P.S.

Thank you for a link. Article from Reuters is good. But keep in mind that Rosneft has really good ties with BP; Greenpeace guy is a prooven windbag and Radioactive material seeping through cracks in the ground is just not the case under such deep water. Fabius byle (talk) 11:36, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Crude oil is radioactive (as are most things), but without seeing some kind of evidence I would think it's nowhere near the amount released from a nuclear bomb of any size, and it's certainly much less concentrated. Also, I'm not sure but I think calling the alleged withholding of a map a "crime against humanity" has a similar effect on your argument as those victim to Godwin's law. Hyperbole is seldom an effective way to win an argument, at least not on Wikipedia. TastyCakes (talk) 16:14, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

It is hard to tell environmental consequences of the explosion since the map of an oil field is not available to the public. And, since there is no publicly available map, independent scientists and experts can not create a plan for stopping the leak with explosion. It would be completely different case if scientists were allowed to create a plan based on a precise map, and it would be proved dangerous or impracticable. But only thing we know is what BP told us that it's a bad idea.

"Also, I'm not sure but I think calling the alleged withholding of a map a "crime against humanity" has a similar effect on your argument as those victim to Godwin's law. Hyperbole is seldom an effective way to win an argument, at least not on Wikipedia."

I'm perfecly OK with current content of an article and I'm not arguing. I just wanted to share how I feel about it. Not releasing valuable information about catastrophe of such scale just because it will hurt outcome of BP's oil exploration effort is immoral. And definitely should be criminal - because it hurts everybody. Fabius byle (talk) 19:02, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not just BP, many sources (including the government) agree that explosives of any sort are probably not a good idea because they eliminate all other options, and even more sources agree that "the nuclear option" is a bad idea. I'm not sure what you mean by "maps" (whether you just mean a surface map, which I think would be of limited use, or a geological map), but without a reliable source saying the same thing, there is no way your concerns can be put in the article. If you don't want any of this in the article and you are just hear to talk about the spill, please remember that Wikipedia is not a forum, but that there are plenty of places on the internet that are. TastyCakes (talk) 22:15, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Doomsday Scenario

There has been some recent discussions about a possible doomsday scenario happening due to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Should there be a section added to this article regarding this? Source Source 2—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.253.7.139 (talk) 02:42, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, most of the discussion seems to be of the Tin foil hat type. ABC has quotes from an expert that debates the theory:

"The idea that there could be a catastrophic cave in,

or a methane gas explosion, that's not a reasonable

worry. [...] The rock formations on top of this oil

deposit have enough strength that nothing like that

is going to happen."

137.122.93.50 (talk) 22:30, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

More from 2 more experts 137.122.93.50 (talk) 01:09, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The birds and fish will suffer even more from human activity unless we switch to things like wind energy and solar energy. Even I don't know the exact amount that the oil refinery had before the explosion. Will the oil run out before we run out of ocean for the fishes (and the fishermen) to roam in? GVnayR (talk) 22:20, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but FEW people know the exact amount, only estimates. But if you have some extraordinary means to calculate the amounts lost, feel free to share them. 5 years or so from now, this will be a fading memory. I wouldn't doubt that articles related to this will be active for years as the various lawsuits, technology responses, and ecological studies are done. Don't worry, be happy! Life will go on. You may now continue drinking bottled water. --Hourick (talk) 18:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

CAP?

I keep hearing the device installed on top of the pipe as a "cap". I work with piping, and a cap is a cover or seal. The device might more properly be referred to as a coupling or spool since it does not seal off or cap off the well. It is merely a fixture to couple the wellhead to other equipment. It would be interesting to hear from someone within the petroleum industry as the terminology being used makes no sense to me. It would be helpful to add more information to the article to explain what the device actually does. H2O (talk) 19:23, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

There is too much simplification in the media. The correct term is a Capping BOP Stack, meaning a secondary blow-out preventer which is attached to the top of the existing BOP. This unit was assembled from industry-standard components like BOP rams, hub latching connector and chokes. The reason for the need is to supplement the loss of the existing BOP rams, possibly impeded in closing fully due to well debris post blow-out. These debris could be tools/pipe left in the bore (called "fish" ) or more likely, cement from the final shoe (a plug of cement in the bottom of the well) and burst disks (more concrete plugs further up the well bore, placed for pressure control during cementing).

This capping stack BOP is not a "cap" but rather a series of valves. Unlike the previous "caps" which were not physically attached, this additional BOP is now integral with the pressurized portion of the well.

The 3 rams of this BOP have 2 states of normal operation, full open or full closed. The chokes are variable valves, functioning as variable orifices for flow and pressure control. There are 3 ROV panels, the bottom one being for latching or attaching the CSBOP to the top of the original BOP. The middle panel is for ram control and the top for choke control. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.177.134.125 (talk) 21:03, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Here is a good video for the above information: http://bp.concerts.com/gom/riser_capping_stack_070110.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.177.134.125 (talk) 23:12, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Italics on Deepwater Horizon?

I would like to propose removing the italics from the name Deepwater Horizon. I realize that it is customary to italicize the names of ships, and for at least some legal purposes drilling rigs are ships, but the use of italics for drilling rigs does not seem to be supported by the news coverage. I checked the first 20 references to this article and could not find a single example where a news organization chose to italicize "Deepwater Horizon". A cursory search of a few dozen hits on Google News also failed to show any examples of italics. I assume there are probably at least some examples of italics somewhere, but the overwhelming majority of coverage seems to treat the drilling rig as not requiring italics. Given that Wikipedia's style rules are mostly meant to mimic common rules of usage, I think we should do what most other reporters are doing and not use italics in this case. (My apologies if this has been discussed before, but I only just noticed that it seemed weird to me.) Dragons flight (talk) 20:27, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Students will note that news coverage often fails to italicize “normal” ships such as the Titanic also, see BBC, CBS, MSNBC (AP), IndyStar. ―cobaltcigs 21:13, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Which might be an argument for reconsidering whether we should ever italicize ship names, but doesn't really make a argument for continuing to italicize this oil rig. Wikipedia is still the only site I've been able to find that is using italics for the oil rig. Dragons flight (talk) 21:34, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I thought it was an argument against putting much stock in how news coverage writes things, nothing more or less. Any decision reached should not be specific to this article or to this oil rig, so you ought to try Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (ships), Wikipedia:Manual of Style (text formatting)#Italic face, etc. (the latter of which refers broadly to “named vehicles” of any kind). ―cobaltcigs 22:00, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

As registered in the ship register the ships' names convention applies also to Deepwater Horizon. Beagel (talk) 21:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

If following a rule results in a style convention that is different than what all other publishers are doing, then it is a stupid rule (see WP:IAR). Personally, I'd just as well take the position that oil rigs are neither ships nor vehicles, even though some types are floating and/or have the potential to be moved. (I don't see anything saying we are required to follow the ship register for objects that are in most other aspects not ship-like.) I don't think I am going to win this debate, and don't really see it as that important, so this will probably be my last comment here, but I do think it is stupid to blindly adhere to a rule about italics if no other publications on this topic have adopted the same convention. Dragons flight (talk) 22:43, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Please see this. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:54, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Do not use the laziness of the editors within other publications who can't be troubled to grab the style guides for their industry or publication and verify conventions of style. Doing so merely serves to prove one's own ignorance, laziness and unprofessionalism on the matter, neither of which will gain you authoritative knowledge or respect on the matter.Naval historians and publishers (such as Janes' for example) have long since italicized ship's names. Furthermore, another reason many newspapers print ship names incorrectly as stated in the "The Associated Press Stylebook" is that italics text can't be sent over the AP wire. One can only assume that the italics is considered a minor issue in the minds of these editors who would rather focus on other more relevant typographical errors. Having worked as a newspaper editor, I see it simply as sheer laziness and unprofessionalism on the part of the editing departments of those publications who do not follow the accepted styles. BGinOC (talk)

Deepwater Horizon was allocated an IMO number and a MMSI number, and therefore was de facto, a ship. Per WP:MOSSHIP, the name of Deepwater Horizon should appear in italics. Mjroots (talk) 05:54, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

You are confusing "de facto" with "de jure". In my opinion, drilling rigs are de facto NOT ships, and adopting the legal position that they are makes for a silly rule that almost no one else seems to follow. Dragons flight (talk) 10:50, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe your definition for a ship is just too narrow? Beagel (talk) 11:38, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Please see also the discussion Anna linked above. Beagel (talk) 11:42, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Moot point. The Ixtoc I blowout,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ixtoc_I_oil_spill, was being drilled by the Sedco 135F drilling rig. No one calls that the Sedco 135F oil spill. Likewise, this incident should be called Macondo 1. How about we strive for technical accuracy over style? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.177.134.125 (talk) 23:34, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I understand that your remarks is about the name of this article and not about the style used for the drilling rig name. While I personally like to see Macondo name used for this purpose, there seems to be a concensus to wait and see before restarting any new renaming discussion. Beagel (talk) 09:49, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

health affects

I thought it was worth noting that clean up workers were diagnosed with dehydration which shares symptoms to petro-chemical exposure, sorry for the awkward wording, feel free to move it around if you feel it isn't in the appropriate style208.3.91.194 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:51, 17 July 2010 (UTC).

upon review I edited my addition, apparently the formatting is different when being linked to a section of a different article...208.3.91.194 (talk)

How "capped" exactly is the hole now?

There are so many data on the topic of capping this oil vulcano that it seem impossible to find a simple answer on - how far has the sealin the hole off progressed, and how much oil per day is still estimated to be flowing out?

Is there anyone to organize the updates somehow so we could follow them and see the progress? A few simple facts would be really appreciated.

This seems the saddest ongoing event in the 2010, and the media here in my country have forgotten about it.

Thank you.--92.250.128.50 (talk) 13:42, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

You can find all information in the article and its sub-articles. This one [2] gives you a direct answer to your question and here is a timeline of the spill. TMCk (talk) 14:05, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot TMCk, that was exactly the thing I wanted to follow! It was just difficult for me to pin it down myself.--92.250.128.50 (talk) 18:39, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

On a similar note: why was the measure that actually succeeded at stopping the flow applied only now and not as a very first step? I understand we can't undo history, but from explaining this could learn some about disaster handling in the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.199.119 (talk) 21:02, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I had that question too and googled around for the answer. Since the 'measure' is 30 feet tall and weighs about 80 tons and the animation describing it implies that the design, manufacture, and testing has been underway since 'almost day 1' I suspect it just took that long to build and put in place. Essentially they bolted another Blowout Preventer on top of the failed Blowout Preventer. http://bp.concerts.com/gom/sealingcapinstallationanimationwithkentwells070910.htm Darrell_Greenwood (talk) 21:51, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

reader's comment

Hey guys. This article is great, yet it is WAY too long and have redundant iunformation. Yet still, there's an alarming lack of some related content, such as various alternative (non-governmental) explenations. I'de love for someone knowledgable to sum this up. [3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.70.81.176 (talk) 14:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

top kill, bottom kill, static kill

We seem to be missing bottom kill and static kill, but we have top kill as an article... 76.66.193.119 (talk) 03:35, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Flow rate table is grossly inaccurate

The flow rate table is horribly off and are gross POV. The big numbers on either side are based on the assumption that there was no blowout preventer (which acted as choke on oil going into the gulf). It was never ever ever said by anybody that that much oil was going into the gulf. The smaller numbers are true estimates made by various groups on what was going into the Gulf. And if you want it to be truly accurate. The estimate on Day 1 after the Deepwater Horizon sank was 0.Americasroof (talk) 17:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Splitting the article

It is getting rather big. Perhaps the "Consequences" section could be split off. Suggestions? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:51, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Also "Efforts to stem the flow of oil" could be split off (and "Considerations of using explosives" subsection removed in whole). Beagel (talk) 22:26, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I made the "Efforts to stem the flow of oil" section into its own article and I also eliminated the "Consideration of using explosives" subsection completely. GVnayR (talk) 22:55, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree with "Efforts" split, but Disagree with "explosives" subsection deletion. --Lexein (talk) 03:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree with "Consequences" split, but Disagree with "explosives" subsection deletion. Not sure about "Efforts" split, as this is a relatively small section, although I suppose it will grow. Disagree about timing of split--I think that more time should be given for editor feedback before doing a split-- JTSchreiber (talk) 04:59, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Since more people disagreed than agreed, I decided to restore the "explosives" subsection. GVnayR (talk) 15:10, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Right now we have a separate article which is almost identical to the section in this article. When the separate article is split, the section in this article should only summarize the subject and include only the most important information. I think this is Ok to restore the explosive section in the separate article, but it will be enough to have just one sentence in this article, not a separate subsection. Beagel (talk) 18:32, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I have reduced the explosives section on this article to two sentences. GVnayR (talk) 20:18, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Beagel (although that should go without saying) and Anna Frodesiak's suggestion is also what i just had in mind as i glanced the article and came here to suggest a split.Lihaas (talk) 11:24, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's been a week, so most have had a chance to weigh in. No rush, but it looks like consensus. Further thoughts? Suggestions? How about the name? Consequences of Deepwater Horizon oil spill? Consequences of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill? (the latter is blue because it's a redirect) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:18, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Well it already exists so lets un-redirect it and use the page.(Lihaas (talk) 09:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Good plan. We could put it in the list of page moves, or bug an admin. Let's bug an admin. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:24, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

We also have Economic and political consequences of the Deepwater Horizon disaster, so we should consider if it remains as a separate article or should be merged into the new Consequences of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill article. Beagel (talk) 17:19, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Good point. I've added { { main|Economic and political consequences of the Deepwater Horizon disaster } } beneath section heading: Deepwater Horizon oil spill#Other economic consequences, but it might be better beneath section heading: Deepwater Horizon oil spill#Consequences as it is about both economic and political consequences.

I suggest moving the consequences section and then worrying about a possible merge. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:16, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

BP spin doctors "photoshop" pictures

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/oil/7904221/BP-admits-it-Photoshopped-official-images-as-oil-spill-cut-and-paste-row-escalates.html

The oil giant was forced to issue new guidelines to staff to “refrain from doing (sic) cutting-and-pasting” after several official company images were found to have been doctored.

BP admitted on Thursday that it “Photoshopped” some of its official images that were posted on its website and vowed to stop the embarrassing practice. 71.184.184.238 (talk) 16:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

A WHALE super skimmer ineffective due to dispersant use

"BP's use of chemical dispersants prevented A Whale, billed as the world's largest skimmer, from collecting a "significant amount" of oil during a week of testing that ended Friday.

"When dispersants are used in high volume virtually from the point that oil leaves the well, it presents real challenges for high-volume skimming," [[4]] 174.74.2.72 (talk) 03:11, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Is 'Oil Spill' an Accurate Name for this Event?

Sine the nature of this accident isn't a spill, as in a defined amount of fluid substance accidentally falling out of some kind of container, I am wondering what a more logical name for this article would be. It would seem something like 'Deepwater Horizon Oil Disaster' or 'Disaster' would be more descriptive, or at least less misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Biry0501 (talk • contribs) 19:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

'Oil spill' is more descriptive. Google reports 83 million hits for "Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill" for 2 million hits for "Deepwater Horizon Oil Disaster", it would seem everybody refers to it as an oil spill. I support keeping the current name. Darrell_Greenwood (talk) 19:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

But I wonder if references like Wikipedia using a misleading name only perpetuates a common misconception by using this misnomer. Shouldn't a reference cite like Wikipedia aim to educate the 83 million that may be misled as to the nature of this disaster? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Biry0501 (talk • contribs) 05:46, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

"Spill" is more descriptive that "Disaster", not to mention more objective. These names are shaped by the media and public opinion over time, not one person's agenda. Relax... this ecological catastrophe isn't going to get whitewashed any time soon. - JeffJonez (talk) 11:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Even today, I see the media are still calling it a "spill". The difference here, apparently, is that it's "spilling" upwards. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:44, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you can argue that calling this a spill is more descriptive than a disaster or that it is somehow more objective. Actually, if anything, there seems to be more of an agenda in using an incorrect noun participle, than a more accurate one. I also challenge the assertion that because the media says something enough times, that makes it correct. I am not saying disaster is the only word; just this simply is not a spill. That is an incorrect term, no matter how many times it is said.

English language is the only to call this a spill, see the lemmas used for other language versions of this article. Would be interesting to find out who coined the term. It's definitely more friendly to the oil business than it is to those affected by the environmental consequences. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.38.192.210 (talk) 15:25, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

That is interesting. I noticed in German it is an oil pest (as in pollution disaster), the Swedes, Norwegians, and Danes are calling it an 'out-pour', and in Italian, it is a disaster. I wonder what is motivating us to use such an inaccurate word like 'spill'. I think Wikipedia should be better than the rest of the media.

Link to the previous discussion about this topic: Talk:Deepwater Horizon oil spill/Archive 7#It is a Leak, not a Spill

Relevant info from earlier discussion: Bob Dudley of BP has said: "This is not a spill – it's an ongoing leak".[5] Although more people search the term "spill" when searching Google, Wikipedia should be the place they are corrected. Anyway, whether you search leak or spill, you will still see this webpage at the top of your search. 174.74.2.72 (talk) 02:52, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

The British tend to call it an oil slick. I like that. --Jerome Potts (talk) 05:54, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

The word "slick" hardly references the underwater oil plumes where the majority of the BP oil is located, slick refers to the oil you can see, like in the recent China spill -

Researchers confirm subsea Gulf oil plumes are from BP well [[6]] 174.74.2.72 (talk) 00:37, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Bias

We can clearly see by the editing of this article that it is entirely written in a pro-British and anti-American perspective. I wonder how much B.P. had to pay a few people from the UK to gloss over and spin the facts here? Not to mention it is written in British English instead of American English. I think that a tag needs to be placed at the top of this article warning readers that it is imbalanced and bias towards a British perspective. That way, everybody will know not to take this article as factually accurate or credible.Yoganate79 (talk) 01:24, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

-- Here here, as they say in the Queen's English. British Petroleum's public relations department, and their agency, Burson Marsteller, must be congratulated for the degree to which they have committed to keeping "BP" out of the headline or any subheading in this article. They have earned every penny! A great success! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.248.180.183 (talk) 04:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia bears some responsibility for this. They should expect that an article like this would be spun and manipulated, and have a special task force to "drop in" to articles like this to prevent corporate spinning and domination of such articles. Such gamesmanship only makes BP look worse though. It doesn't fool anyone.

I hope this article is not pro-British or pro-American and definitely not anti-British or anti-American but it is neutral. And I really hope that every bit of information added to this article is verified by reliable sources. Please be more precise what information in this article does not follow these principles. Claims about the article is being biased without giving any facts is not very productive. Beagel (talk) 17:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

That is what we all hope, but a small amount of digging and you will find that Wikipedia is well known to be run by "power editors", some of whom are working for interest groups. There is absolutely no one overseeing neutrality. You have to do that yourself, and you have to know how to play the game here, which is grueling. It is no surprise that this article would have the attention of the same group who photoshop BP material ~ they spin wherever possible trying to save a sinking ship. Do not doubt they are in here editing away. 174.74.2.72 (talk) 03:03, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

See "Tricky Wiki: How Public Relations Companies Try to Spin Wikipedia" [[7]] 174.74.2.72 (talk) 03:26, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

What does one expect from the filthy British? I see no mentioning whatsoever in this article about British Petroleum lobbying to have the Lockerbie bomber released and to make a quick oil deal with Libya. I think we can safely write this article off as not credible or factual due to the recent spin by the UK of pinning this mess that they created on the shoulders of Americans. Of course, we are seeing a whole section dedicated to "Crisicism of America" but do we see a section dedicated to a rebuttal? I think not.Yoganate79 (talk) 18:42, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Please explain what the Lockerbie bomber release has to do with the oil spill? Also, I would like to ask you to remove the national insult you made above. Please also explain more precisely what is POV in this article and, if possible, tag the specific section, not the whole article. Without more detailed explanation the tag will be removed. Beagel (talk) 19:26, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

You will not remove the tag because I will put it back up where it was. And I will not remove any "national insult". The world would be a lot better of a place if every Brit got infected and died from AIDS. But that is besides the point.

The section on "Criticism of Amrerica' is unwarranted, one-sided, and a half attempt to divert responsibility away from British Petroleum. Also, the Lockerbie bomber hs everything to do with this oil spill since we are seeing everything come to light in the U.S. Senate inquiry not to mention accusations by President Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton. By that same assumption, I ask, what the fuck does Union Carbide have to do with the B.P. ooil spill Obviously an editor had no qualms about including that in it's "criticism of America."Yoganate79 (talk) 19:36, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

In addition to being biased, the "Criticism of Amrerica" was in the wrong article. I moved the section to the "Reactions to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill" article, since that's the article for more detailed descriptions of reactions. I will work on removing the bias from the section there, but may not finish today.

And Yoganate79, please watch your language per WP:CIVIL. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 21:02, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Oil spill over?

With the new cap install and, at least temporary, stop in flow at 3pm yesterday, are we prepared to call the spill over?[8][9] --Labattblueboy (talk) 17:26, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's over when the mess is cleaned up, I suppose. ≡ CUSH ≡ 17:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

So why does the article say "Deepwater [...] WAS an oil spill"? I don't like that one bit. It very much still is an oil spill. / Something something user I don't care —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.248.93.150 (talk) 04:48, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Either way, changing "is" to "was" in this edit was a major change and should have been discussed first. If this has been covered in the archives, forgive me, but I couldn't find it.

So, the big question must be: is "oil spill" a noun or a verb when it comes to this article? (Okay, that doesn't exactly make sense, but I think you get my drift. Is the subject about the oil spilling out, or the oil that spilled out?) New stories like this refer to it as a noun that is still present.

Maybe this should be reverted until consensus is reached. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:56, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

This is just outrageous. Thanks for pointing out the edit Anna. Makes wikipedians look like a bunch of dopes. I hope someone can find the time to revert this edit. If not, I will when I have time. Gandydancer (talk) 01:47, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Gandydancer. I'm not sure which way is right. Personally, I don't care. But, considering that there is a big difference in public perception whether something is happening now, or pushed into the past, I think the article should get it right. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:25, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• The leak is sealed for now but the spill is still there and it is not expected to disappear by itself overnight). It's that simple and verifiable.TMCk (talk) 14:37, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks like Anna fixed it. Thanks Anna! Gandydancer (talk) 23:09, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Researchers confirm subsea Gulf oil plumes are from BP well

Researchers confirm subsea Gulf oil plumes are from BP well [[10]] 174.74.2.72 (talk) 00:39, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

This probably needs to be addressed:

Deep sea plume in Gulf 'changes concept' of an oil spill [[11]]

University of South Florida researchers said they confirmed that the invisible plumes they detected in May, 50 miles from the well, near the DeSoto Canyon that ferries nutrient-rich deep-sea water to Florida's western shore, did indeed come from the BP spill site.

And a new government report unveiled signs of what may be substantially higher concentrations of dispersed oil closer to the well.

USF's finding "changes this whole concept" of an oil spill, said David Hollander, the USF chemical oceanographer who made the confirmation, in a phone call with reporters.

"The fact that petroleum hydrocarbons can reside in the water column changes the paradigm of what a traditional oil spill is," which is, usually, confined to the surface, he said. 174.74.2.72 (talk) 20:46, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Media Blackout

Why is there no mention of how BP has allegedly paid off police forces and whatnot in the Gulf area so stop people, both private citizens and the media, from taking photos of the spill and clean-up efforts?

CybergothiChé (talk) 01:49, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Source? TastyCakes (talk) 15:15, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Who needs a source to make up paranoid crap? 88.105.29.24 (talk) 19:19, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Media blackout? Not really, you can observe from the sidelines, you just cannot charter craft to enter the affected area. Why? There is too much traffic on the sea and in the air to be safe, entering the area puts the responders at greater risk. Forget aircraft, there are a fleet of sprayers flying just feet off the surface. The ATC's working do not need to increase their workload for non-essential traffic. Nearly every vessel also had a helideck and these are essential to the operation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.177.134.125 (talk) 19:50, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, yes, you are quite correct, one does not need a source to make up paranoid crap, but, however, I do have sources, such as :

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/ybenjamin/detail??blogid=150&entry_id=65649

http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oil-spill/index.ssf/2010/06/barriers_to_news_coverage_of_g.html

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/06/bp-hires-mercs-to-block-oily-beaches/

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_ts2612

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=6496749n

CybergothiChé (talk) 21:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Trying to reduce the visibility of an unpopular event is natural behavior for a company in the public eye. Setting up a bird rescue center is the right thing to do, and doing it with private money gives them some right to keep that part of the cleanup private. Boat traffic exacerbates the core problem by spreading the spill. Calling all this a "media blackout" would be POV, I think. But I do agree it merits coverage, perhaps a section called "Media access" which documents these difficulties would be the way to go. Thundermaker (talk) 17:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Grammatical error in "Criticism of America" section

The last two sentences of the "Criticism of America" section presently read:

He then said "it’s a bit rich for a nation that has the biggest lobbying industry in the world, that regularly waters down legislation and strong arms other nations into buying American, to be questioning the motive of others." Also asking why Chevron Texaco, which is apparently on the hook for $27 billion, for dumping 56 billon litres of toxic waste in the Ecuadorian Amazon.

The last sentence is grammatically incorrect, to the point that its meaning could be misinterpreted. After reading the linked Al Jazeera article I was tempted to modify the sentence myself, but thought it more prudent to just comment here and leave it to the discretion of one of the editors more informed on the subject. The two problems I see are:

1. possibly it should all be 1 sentence e.g. ...questioning the motive of others.", also asking why...
2. the last part still doesn't make sense grammatically: "...asking why Texaco Chevron (who is apparently on the hook... for dumping...)" ...did what? Otherwise the "why" should possibly just be something more ambiguous - like "about"?

--Donkeydonkeydonkeydonkey (talk) 15:47, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

This section has since been moved to the Reactions_to_the_Deepwater_Horizon_oil_spill article, and been renamed twice, and edited massively, effectively removing the material I was commenting on. So ignore this comment now, please. --Donkeydonkeydonkeydonkey (talk) 16:12, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Multiple Leaks

Are there further credible sources that report that there are two additional oil leaks near the wellhead? I saw this story on examiner.com, but that's not quite the level of credibility we need. - 76.106.44.10 (talk) 17:54, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

This is interesting ~ Top Expert: There Were No Natural Seeps Within 3 Kilometers of Blown Out Well [[12]] 174.74.2.72 (talk) 00:42, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

There are 2 wells in the area both owned by BP, we the public have only been told about one.

Here is a link to the initial Exploration plan for Mississippi Canyon Block 252

I cant remember my login, but this is my account.87.48.103.195 (talk) 12:37, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Newest NASA image

This is from July 28th, and has no clouds in the image - [13] 174.74.68.103 (talk) 22:32, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Acre-feet

I believe it would be appropriate to also cite the volume of oil as acre-feet. I calculate as follows: Average spill per day = (35000 + 60000)/2 = 47500 bbl/day. 47500 x 42 = 1995000 gal/day. This is a bit more than 6.12 acre-feet/day. That is, per day this spill would cover an acre more than 6 feet deep. Assuming the average rate prevailed over 86 days, there would be something like 526.5 acre-feet total, enough to cover a square mile more than 0.8 feet deep in the stuff. Even assuming the minimum estimate, 30,000 bbl/day, there would be 332.5 acre-feet total, enough to cover a square mile a half-foot deep. This way of presenting the information might make the disaster more palpable to some people. Too Old (talk) 21:33, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmm acre-feet is quite often used in the oil industry, but generally not to measure amounts of oil out of the ground. I think it's more used to measure either rock volumes or the amount of oil originally in the ground. Maybe it would be of use to people to visualize the quantity of oil involved, but figured I should point out it's kind of an unusual unit to use in this context. TastyCakes (talk) 21:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe thats why its unusual to use in this manner - it is visually effective and understandable in perceiving the amount of oil that is now circulating about the Gulf.BGinOC (talk)

If you're suggesting there's a conscious effort not to use acre-feet in the description of oil spill volumes because it's just too good of a unit, I'm afraid I must disagree. But if others think it's a useful metric, maybe it has a place here. TastyCakes (talk) 15:14, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll try to include acre-foot measures where appropriate if others agree. Vote? Too Old (talk) 20:09, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

On second thought, I think I'll do it anyway. I just noticed that, on June 20, BP internally estimated up to 100,000 bbl/day - that's 12.89 acre-feet/day! Too Old (talk) 20:17, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I strongly oppose this. First of all, as TastyCake mentioned this unit is not usually used for oil out of ground. Secondly, we already have three different units: oil barrels (which is standard for the oil industry), US gallons (which is understandable for most of Americans) and cubic meters (preferred by people from countries using SI units). Adding one more unit makes the text less readable and e.g. Europeans acre-feet says nothing. For third, acre-feet is no SI unit.

I suppose hectare-meters (1 ha-m = 10000 cubic meters) might satisfy you? 100,000 bbl/day = 16,000 cu m/day = 1.6 ha-m/day, enough to cover a hectare about 160 cm deep in one day. Drowning depth for many non-swimmers. It certainly is easier to visualize, don't you think? I doubt if BP would like one to visualize. BTW, the acre-foot is commonly used in the US when characterizing the waters of a river or lake, or quantities in water treaties between states. It is not normally used about petroleum because it would be very unusual to have enough petroleum to be able to use it. Usually. Too Old (talk) 01:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC) Like stating the size of a room in miles.Too Old (talk) 03:24, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I did it. Hope it doesn't upset too many. At least those who sign their comments. Too Old (talk) 03:24, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Or how about the simplest question of all: Just what do 4,000,000 42-gallon containers look like anyway? At typical barrel height:width ratios, if we still used barrels the spill would require a 1 square kilometer warehouse to store. That's 250 acres (2/5 sq mi). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 07:44, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Using acre-feet for oil out of the ground goes against the basic principle of imperial and US customary measurements, which is to create weird units of measure for each and every conceivable trade and occupation, so as to create a barrier to entry to that trade or occupation. Since the basic principle of imperial and US customary measurements is directly opposed to the principle of Wikipedia, which is to make knowledge readily available to everyone, gratuitous and unnecessary conversions to imperial and US customary measurements should be avoided. Jc3s5h (talk) 11:47, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

You sure have a low opinion of imperial units. You might've gotten this impression from once seeing a chart that has LENGTH: peppercorn (unit), barleycorn (unit), finger (unit), digit (unit), palm (unit), hand (unit), span (unit), cubit, ell, fathom, rod (unit), chain (unit), furlong, league (unit), nautical league; WEIGHT:... but nobody uses these IRL anymore (unless they follow horse racing, (8 f/mile)). There are only few units left - which aren't sufficiently many to make having to remembering them all cause knowledge to be less readily available than to a public who has to grow up learning metric. Sometimes they go too far (like how can you not have a well-known measure below ounce and inch?) but Americans are stupid and unscientific aren't we? Oh, and I'm not sure if many Americans knew how many gallons an oil barrel is or if they remember from somewhere "it's 40-something" (I thought it was 46 for so long!), but they kindof know how big a physical barrel is and at these inhuman scales, that's good enough. (And oil is the only barrel cared about all because that's what the price is in everytime they give the dang price of oil) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:27, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Have I got this right: you're asserting that "the basic principle of using imperial or US customary measurements, which is to create weird units of measure... so as to create a barrier to entry"? I thought the basic principle of them was to standardise units of measure into those that everyone can agree on. Do you mean that using acre-feet for oil out of the ground goes against the basic principle by creating weird units of measure?

You then go on to say "the basic principle of imperial and US customary measurements is directly opposed to the principle of Wikipedia, which is to make knowledge readily available to everyone". I don't see how using standard units of measure that everyone can be taught or look up is against that principle; it would seem to me that using ad-hoc units of measure is more likely make knowledge less readily available.

Perhaps I have completely misunderstood what you mean, but that it seems to me is what you say.

I agree that unnecessary conversions to obscure or inappropriate units of measure should be avoided, and it seems to me here that acre-feet, while not particularly obscure, is inappropriate, since the oil is not characterized by covering a surface to a particular, roughly uniform, depth. Barrels of oil, or billion barrels of oil, would seem a more appropriate derived unit of standard measure (the US gallon). Si Trew (talk) 07:49, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with most of what you said but an acre-foot is not a specific, flat shape but a unit of volume just like a cubic meter doesn't have to be a cube. It's used because gallon and even cubic foot/yard would be too small (for things dealing with outdoors water), and a square mile is too large to picture all at once (i.e, it'd be extremely flat unless the resultant unit was huge). Since acre-feet is used in petroleum reservoir measurement, using it isn't that wrong, it's just reservoir that's been moved. If some editors want to see smaller numbers, the industry standard M bbl and MM bbl have the even worse problems of pseudo-SI ness causing confusion, obscurity, and being very unvisualizable (M and mille millesMM just essentially converting back into large numbers of the very same unit we tried to provide an alternative for. Might I suggest turning all references to millions into the word million, abbreviating all unit names after their first appearances (i.e. gal, m³ and bbl) and generally making this converted unit stuff as short as possible? Maybe we could then squeeze acre-ft in. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:27, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I doubt that there is one person in 20 who knows how many acres in a square mile, so putting it in acre-feet would be useless to the general reader. If we want to illustrate volume in terms of thickness x area, why don't we just choose an appropriate thickness (say, an inch, or a cm) and say how many mi2 or km2 the spilled volume would cover. Plazak (talk) 13:09, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

That would be useful to those who don't have a concept of an acre (~2/3 of a football field by the way). (I'm very familiar with the acre because 200 ft is the widest a square building can be on a New York City standard block) Using square mile-inches though would introduce a (while technically correct) even less used unit that doesn't seem to appear non-trivially on Google. And, as I said before sq mi-inches are very thin and profile shapes as thin as 6 square mile-inches "wastes depth" by forcing you to imagine a larger surface area than is necessary. I am perfectly capable of imagining oil either 1 foot deep or 1 inch thick but 4 miles away on the horizon doesn't seem that different to me from 1 mile away, but enclosing a much differenter area. But (if larger than human scale) thick profile volumes have diminishing returns on the mind to fully appreciate what is there. So acre feet is a good size for visualization as an acre balances "large enough that foreshortening makes not being able to truly see your area" and "you want the largest area possible or the numbers will get big, this is a huge spill") at human scale (of standing up, eye height); you can kick it around and it sloshes but isn't like a mere inch or centimeter thin, or deep enough that you have to swim in it and lose your intuit connection to the full gravity of the depth (of oil, that is). Damn, I sound like a woman.. So 448 of those things.. or whatever it finally turns out to be. As far as you can judge area well times as far as you can judge area well times a foot, then times ~half a thousand - taking everyday experience to the very limit just to find something large enough to hold the oil. This is what is said to the acre-familiar user when he reads "526 acre-feet".

Also, I like the x million literal barrels laid out side to side idea but this one works too. I might make a diagram. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:27, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

If it were one inch thick, it would be about 6 square miles in extent, assuming none of it was recovered, burned, evaporated, degraded or landed, and it went on for 86 days at 40,000 bbl/day.DonSiano (talk) 18:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

In the context of comparing to the actual square milage of the spill 150 square mile-millimeters and 1,500 square mile-sheets of paper does help me (visualize), but this is even more weirderer of units. The amount spilled could be larger of course, if the previous estimate treadmill told us anything. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:27, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I realise the source of my confusion with User:Jc3s5h's argument; without saying so it was to say that any measurement that is not SI is unacceptable. Forgive me for my confusion but I thought we were discussing whether acre-feet are acceptable, not whether the entire English Wikipedia should be stripped of imperial or US customary measures. Forgive me for being led up a blind alley; though I still say in my opinion acre-feet in particular are inappropriate and that bbl (billion barrels of oil) would probably be the most appropriate. Si Trew (talk) 20:37, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

bbl means just 1 barrel. bl is hay bale. US is stupid, huh? And besides, we can't use no imperial/US at all, a huge portion of WP-EN readers use imperial or US. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:24, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I just was trying to use a measure that would be easier to visualize. I see that acre-feet is not readily visualized by some (most?) people. OK. The article says that there might have been as much as 180,000,000 gallons total spill, which I calculated to be about 552 acre-feet. One could also say 0.68 cubic kilometers, or 680,000 cubic meters. That would cover a hectare to a depth of 68 meters! If that measure, 68 hectare-meters is easier to visualize than 180,000,000 gallons or 552 acre-feet, use that, by all means. (1 cubic meter is a bit more than 264 gallons; a hectare-meter would be 10,000 cubic meters.) Too Old (talk) 09:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• Against Previous discussion affirmed the principal unit of measure as bbl and US gallons, with metric as the third to satisfy a global audiance. A fourth unit of measure is not necessary. I have not see a single media report with acre-feet in it... not one, and its certainly not a common public unit of measure. --Labattblueboy (talk) 15:21, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• Against Acre-feet measures should be omitted. Three measures of volume are enough. If someone wants to convert to another measure, conversion calculators are easy to find and use. Adding acre-feet just makes the article harder to read, whithout adding a thing. Take it out!DonSiano (talk) 16:05, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Putting it in hay bales seems like an excellent idea, except then we would have to discuss loosely packed or tight; hay, straw, or pasture mix?; old-fashioned or the big new-fangled round?; and so on. Seems that could start many long Wikipedia arguments. So, perhaps just best to leave it as it is. Gandydancer (talk) 16:21, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose The article is so far away from the guidelines for units of measurement contained in wp:mosnum that it beggars belief. I was going to hold fire until the well was effectively capped and things had well and truly calmed down before commenting. Adding a third customary unit of measure is ridiculous makes the text and tables extraordinarily difficult to read. In the end, the text should show the following for measurements; either bbls or us gallons (but not both and no acre.feet) and then a suitable metric conversion for the value. For each context (flow rate or total volume) one prime unit should be chosen for consistency throughout the article (and the sub articles as well). Conversion factors from the chosen prime customary unit and other customary units contained in reference sources should be stated in each article's footnotes to allow readers to readily verify converted values included in text. Ideally, if a lot of conversions need to be done, then the prime unit may as well be a metric one and choose a customary unit to convert to. The article, as it currently reads is well below the standard expected of a high-profile WP article. We don't need to show every unit we can think of to help a reader visualise a particular measurement. Even the experts had lots of problems with the visualisation. It won't be fixed by stuffing in more conversions. Simplify and make the article(s) easier to read. Bleakcomb (talk) 08:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, drop the acre-feet idea. So, how much is a barrel? What most Americans think of is a "55 gallon" steel drum (presumably US gallons). But a barrel of petroleum is 42 US gallons, or not quite 35 Imperial gallons. The US gallon is exactly 3,785.411784 cc; the Imperial gallon is exactly 4,546.09 cc. (http://ts.nist.gov/WeightsAndMeasures/Publications/upload/AppendC-09-HB44-FINAL.pdf) The pertroleum barrel is exactly 158,987.294928 cc. Divide each by 1,000 to get liters, or 1,000,000 to get cubic meters, and round to two significant digits (all that is justified). So your proposal to specify either barrels or gallons would be ambiguous, and would not be improved by conversion factors in a footnote. You would still have units that most humans would have difficulty envisioning. Would that make the article 'easier to read'? Too Old (talk) 07:22, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand when you say choosing one prime customary unit would be ambiguous. My main point is that there are way too many figures and pointless conversions going on, particularly in Deepwater Horizon oil spill#Spill flow rate. Such as BP estimated the worst case flow at 162,000 barrels (6,800,000 US gallons; 25,800 cubic metres). This should be BP estimated the worst case flow at 162,000 barrels (25,800 m³) or BP estimated the worst case flow at 6,800,000 US gallons (26,000 m³). Choose one. The other customary unit is redundant. That makes the article easier to read. The previous addition of acre.feet only made this worse. Note that abbreviations and symbols for unit names should be used in converted units. Note also the rounding errors.

How does including more figures make a value easier to "envision"? The volumes themselves are hard to visualise for most people, even the guessers experts; no matter which unit is used. More conversions are not going to help. What most people will gain from simple consistent units is the ability to compare. 10,000 barrels is a lot - 5,000 barrels is half that and 10 barrels is probably not that much at all. Converting to gallons will only confirm that already stated; a lot - half that and not that much at all. Who in the general readership forms a valid, immediate mental image of 6,800,000 gallons? Why include it?

Are you trying to say that oil barrels are not well understood? If so, we should consider not using them as the prime unit. The number of sources using oil barrels as the unit of measure may override this consideration, as I think it has in previous discussions. A footnote describing an oil barrel with conversion factors would be useful. A sidebar, perhaps, when things calm down, visualising some key or representative large values may help. But this effort should not occur at every stated measurement in the text, otherwise the text becomes illegible.

An aside. I recall as a student of a particular Economics teacher in high school that he would restate almost every percentage figure in at least two other equivalent yet redundant fractions (more if we had Economics before lunch). Thus "..prices have increased 5 percent, that's one twentieth or five one hundredths...". He was mocked cruelly behind his back. I would not wish the same for this article. ;-) Bleakcomb (talk) 00:52, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, you've convinced me. (Although my point about ambiguity was that not everyone will agree about the size of a 'barrel', nor will everyone agree on the size of a 'gallon'.) So use the units 'bbl' and 'm³' and state in a sidebar that a m³ is approximately 6.3 bbl (which is off by about a liter and a half) and round all quantities to two or 3 (preferably 2) significant digits. Too Old (talk) 05:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Terms associated with plugging the well

Are there any sources to indicate the term "static-kill" was in use in the oil industry prior to the BP Gulf oil spill or has this term been recently coined by BP and/or the media? The so called "static-kill" sounds like a variation of the "top-kill" where mud is pumped down into the well from the top. The new name seems like it may be just PR spin to make it sound like BP isn't re-trying a method that failed during the first attempt. 69.68.125.6 (talk) 14:13, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Now world's largest

The BBC says that the gov't says that 4.9 million barrels spilled total, beating the Ixtoc I oil spill. I see no effort in the article to name a total figure. It should be in the lead. Abductive (reasoning) 08:25, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The BBC article says "Only the intentional release of an estimated eight million barrels of oil into the Gulf by Iraqi troops during the Gulf War in 1991 was greater." But Largest oil spills lists the Gulf War oil spill at 2M-6M bbl and ranks it third and this one second, with the largest being Lakeview Gusher at 9M bbl. (100 years ago). BBC doesn't mention that, perhaps because it was on land. Our article currently says "largest offshore spill in U.S. history". Should we change it to "second-largest marine spill in history", or "largest unintentional marine spill in history"? I think it's better the way it is. Thundermaker (talk) 10:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Abductive, I added the figure to the lede (only, for now...). The flow rate also needs to be updated now that new numbers are out. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/03/us/03spill.html?_r=1&ref=oil_spills Gandydancer (talk) 11:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Which is temporary and which is permanent?

I posted on User talk:StuHarris; this person doesn't seem to have a problem with what I did. The "static kill" seems to be a permanent solution when combined with the relief well, and the permanent closure section was short of material. User:StuHarris had posted about the static kill under "Short-term efforts" so I was under the impression the coverage was inadequate, but when I saw his additions I moved them to (my opinion) the proper place. He did the same thing on Efforts to stem the Deepwater Horizon oil spill ‎, where I believe expansion of the static kill information is needed. I moved his information there too.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:53, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Clean up?

Sources are reporting that the Obama administration has concluded that approximately 75% of the oil spilled has been recovered or dispersed. Would like to see it added, just wasnt sure where it should go? http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Nearly+spill+gone+from+Gulf/3357850/story.html 209.91.107.253 (talk) 16:30, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I think I added the information, under "removal".Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 17:29, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

It is the largest marine oil spill.

Currently reads: " It is the largest accidental marine oil spill in the history of the petroleum industry." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Largest_oil_spills#Largest_oil_spills It seems that] it is the largest marine spill, period. Can we remove the word "accidental"? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:30, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

 Done Thundermaker (talk) 18:05, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Health Consequences

This section contains the following sentence: "Crude oil contains a mixture of volatile hydrocarbon compounds, which include polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes, which are known carcinogens." which is based on just pure ignorance of organic and crude oil chemistry and is anti-petroleum bias.

First, crude oil has a much more complex and less certain chemical makeup than expressed here: it may or may not contain any aromatics depending on its source so the sentence as it stands amounts to a lie. If any crude oil contained appreciable amounts of benzene, ethyl benzene, toluene or xylenes they would refined out as pure chemical products and there is no evidence that any of them are present in this particular crude. Unless an assay of the chemical characteristics of the particular crude type at hand in the Gulf spill is available and quotable this sentence has to come out if only for that reason.

Second, ethyl benzene, toluene and xylenes are NOT "known carcinogens". If you think otherwise, please provide references but they are not mentioned as such here at Wikipedia under their respective sections and I'm not aware of any special restrictions on their use and availability in commerce, other than what would apply to any other organic solvent.Scunnerous (talk) 22:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I have neither the time nor the interest to spend the amount of time on this issue to really understand it well. That said, it is my impression that this information is not appropriate for this article. Which is not to say that someone could not change my mind... Gandydancer (talk) 23:52, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I think you're right, Macdonald. The reference was a science journal, a primary source, and it isn't even about crude oil. It mentions that PAHs can be produced during "processing of coal and crude oil", but it does not say anything about the makeup of crude oil before processing. This is why Wikipedia requires secondary sources -- for accurate interpretation of primary sources like this journal article. The study was called "Contamination of Soils in Automobile Mechanic Workshops", so it was about refined products, not crude. I have removed everything sourced to that document. Thundermaker (talk) 23:58, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Well A or well B?

The current versions says: "At the time of the explosion, it was drilling exploratory well B ...". The reference to the well B is an initial exploration plan by BP which indeed foresees drilling of two exploratory wells. However, there is no reference that the drilling of well B had started. According to the initial exploration plan the well B's drilling should start only on 15 April 2010. At the same time, due to different delays BP was late several months. What is the reliable source saying that this was well B which exploded? Beagel (talk) 07:38, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I removed mentioning well B as there is no reliable source confirming this. Beagel (talk) 09:25, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

References in the lead and infoboxes

As a rule, infoboxes and the lead should not contain any information which is not presented in more detailed way in the text. The lead is a summary of the article and infobox just highlights most important facts from the main body of the article. Right now the lead and infobox are overloaded with references. Per WP:LEADCITE material that is challenged or likely to be challenged should be cited. At the same time we have all necessary citations in relevant sections. Therefore, should we keep all these references in the infobox and the the lead or could we remove at least some of them? Beagel (talk) 08:02, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

They do start to pile up over time, don't they! Perhaps keep the ones least likely to disappear over time? Gandydancer (talk) 12:38, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

This article documents what will become an uncomfortable memory for big business. We must treat everything in it as if it's likely to be challenged, because investors will be motivated to turn it into a crappy article that nobody wants to read. Thundermaker (talk) 12:47, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

That is a fact. In the past corporate interests, which sad to say includes governments that long ago were no longer interested in the people they govern, have written our history. Thanks to the internet and wikipedia, we may be able to change that. Or maybe not... Gandydancer (talk) 14:28, 10 August 2010 (UTC)