Talk:Deepwater Horizon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Deepwater Horizon has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
July 19, 2010 Good article nominee Listed
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Energy (Rated GA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Ships (Rated GA-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. WikiProject icon
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.

Bad math[edit]

First paragraph goes: "at a vertical depth of 35,050 ft (10,680 m) and measured depth of 35,055 ft (10,685 m)": a 5 feet difference does not result in a 5 m difference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:26, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Fixed rounding in the conversion template.Beagel (talk) 06:42, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
It isn't fixed. It still says that a difference of five feet means a difference of five metres. If the template can't be fixed, then it shouldn't be used at all. (talk) 18:02, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
It says: "a vertical depth of 35,050 ft (10,683 m) and a measured depth of 35,055 ft (10,685 m)". So, it is 5 feet or 2 meters. Yes, 5 meters is not precisely 2 meters, but it is correct for rounding. As of showing 5 meters, I suggest to purge your browser cache. Beagel (talk) 18:24, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
No, it still said 10,680 metres. Are you sure you were reading the right part of the article? Because the numbers are found in at least two completely different places (and yes, I did try clearing my cache, manually full-refreshing, etc). Since it was showing correctly later in the article, and incorrectly in the first paragraph, I took a look and noticed that they were invoked differently. Since I didn't feel like editing the template to see why it was different, I simply copied the usage from later in the article into the first paragraph, and now it's showing correctly.
I'm not entirely sure why we're using a template at all though. I mean, it's not like the conversion is subject to constant change, so why isn't it just directly written? (talk) 04:04, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, you are correct. I fixed rounding in the drilling section and did not look at the lead. I hope this is finally fixed now. Beagel (talk) 15:16, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

For starters, where is this 'depth' measured from? Mean Sea Level or from the seabed? This makes a big difference on the depth of this 'deepest well drilled' given that the Gulf of Mexico is a few km deep in places. My inital guess would be MSL. (talk) 00:12, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Cause of Sinking?[edit]

Has anyone discovered why the rig sank? This may seem like a silly question, except that its buoyancy was provided by underwater hulls, which were not subject to flame or (presumably) flood. If the water used to fight the fire overwhelmed the buoyancy of the hulls, then one might expect the rig to capsize, spill the water and remain afloat, perhaps upside-down. If this has been studied and reported on, it would be germane to the article. ---User:HopsonRoad 13:51, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Intense heat and structural damage, plus shifting load due to effects of fire, could account for it, depending on the design but that's complete speculation. At the point where a report comes out the matter might be covered. FT2 (Talk | email) 15:47, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
8 workboats where pouring thousands of gallons of water on her. They had two choices... Stop dousing it with water and let the rig heat-up to the point of structural failure and fold in two OR Douse it and watch her slowly sink. They opted for the first choice and she took a slow death spiral. Since that time at least one of the workboat companies have been sued for sinking her. There are a number of articles on that lawsuit in some of the major newspapers. --Gcaptain (talk) 01:10, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for speaking to this matter, Gcaptain. My question was about the physics of its sinking. Why did it either (a) become permanently heavier than the buoyancy of its hulls (added water would spill out or have been neutralized in specific gravity upon submersion) or (b) why would the hulls lose their ability to maintain buoyancy, since they are sub-surface and not affected by heat? The hulls could have been torqued apart by a disintegrating superstructure. This is what I'm interested in learning and seeing reported here. Surely, by now divers or submersibles have surveyed the subsea wreckage and determined the cause of the lack of buoyancy. If there are some newspaper references that discuss the physics of the sinking, perhaps you could post them here. --User:HopsonRoad 14:57, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Time-sequence photographs show the rig capsizing with the heliport-side rising in the water as the opposite side sank. This suggests that the buoyancy of the sinking side was compromised. --User:HopsonRoad 13:40, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

In popular culture[edit]

I'm tempted to add a pointer to the song (track 9) somewhere ... :-) --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:39, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page[edit]

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 necessaryily 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:

    Triggered by \boffshore-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist
    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 NotifyOnline 11:20, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 21:21, 9 April 2014 (UTC)