Talk:Macondo Prospect

Source of the name

Named after Macondo from Marquez's 100 Years of Solitude?..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yugyug (talk • contribs) 07:21, 7 May 2010‎ (UTC)

How about giving data about the well?

If you look at earth you will see radius, distance from the sun, pecent land, and any number of facts. This article looks like an attempt to hide the disaster. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.94.245.65 (talk) 21:26, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome to add all data about the well you are able to find and which come from reliable sources. For disaster we have a separate article named Deepwater Horizon oil spill‎. Beagel (talk) 21:55, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Importance, Competition

The Deepwater Horizon blowout/leak disaster sent me here. Unfortunately this article doesn't even begin to address my questions: 1] How do very very rough estimates of the size of this field compare to other fields? (I've heard this field is so large that it alone may have a noticeable effect on energy policy - is this true?) 2] How many different oil companies could tap this field? (BP has everything tied up already -or- only the few companies that can afford deep&deepwater drilling can compete -or- BP owns all the existing leases so far, but some plots that could tap the field aren't leased yet -or- not only BP but also XXX and YYY currently own leases that could tap the field -or- so far only BP, but full exploitation in the future will almost certainly require more than one company -or- ...) 3] Is this field "producing" at all yet, or is it still entirely in the exploratory stage? 68.163.203.189 (talk) 06:11, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

• The reservoir figure given on this wiki page from ref [3] is 50 million barrels but it is not clear if this is 'Oil In Place' or 'recoverable'. However either way this is not a big reservoir, and given the deepwater, it would most likely be developed as a small subsea field tied back to another nearby production platform. In comparison the Mars (oil platform) and Thunder Horse oil field are around a billion barrels recvoverable i.e. 20 times this one. The ownership of the prospect is BP/Anardarko/Mitsui as given in the article, and this group of 'partners' are jointly exploring and developing the 'block' and discovery. This well, was the first well in the reservoir and was the discovery well. Further wells would normally be required to explore the extent of the reservoir, and confirm the productivity. These exploration and appraisal wells can be designed to be future production wells by putting a completion and subsea 'christmas tree' onto the wellhead. Follow the reference links for some good descriptions. (andyminicooper (talk) 21:43, 10 June 2010 (UTC))

Age of sediment

Do we know how old the material being drilled through is ~30 k feet below the sea bottom? I think this is the most appropriate article for that information. (fotoguzzi) 69.64.235.42 (talk) 01:19, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Location

Could somebody add lat/long coordinates? BillMcGonigle (talk) 21:06, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Brief section on blowout

Because the explosion and subsequent spill each have their own articles that are frequently updated, the information on them here should be limited to a very brief summary. Otherwise, we will have continuing discrepancies between articles, such as recently occurred when the seafloor seep was first suspected to be coming from the wellbore, then the main article was amended to say that the seep is now believed to be natural, but it took several days for this article to be corrected to reflect that latest news. Plazak (talk) 13:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Anadarko no longer a partner?

Is Anadarko no longer a partner? I'm not the authority on this but possibly BP acquired Anadarko's 25% WI as part of the financial settlement announced last week. If so, somebody please put the details with reference in the article itself. Perhaps it merits a paragraph heading of its own. BUT, Anadarko was a partner at the time of the blowout and this article should be historically correct and mention this with a timeline. A final note: lawyers used to shudder when we non-lawyers would use the term "partner" because that word may mean something else in legal parlance. However, "partner" is the commonly used and understood term so I don't propose any change there. Casey (talk) 16:36, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

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

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

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

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

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

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 11:13, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

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

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Macondo Prospect. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2011/09/29/what-happened-macondo-well/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100524113229/http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=2012968&contentId=7062283 to http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=2012968&contentId=7062283
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100705055816/http://www.gomr.mms.gov/PI/PDFImages/PLANS/29/29977.pdf to http://www.gomr.mms.gov/PI/PDFImages/PLANS/29/29977.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:59, 29 May 2017 (UTC)