Talk:Deepwater Horizon oil spill

Revisions

"While BP does not own any gas stations in the US, it does sell gasoline to BP, ARCO and other gas stations in the US and internationally" Selling gas to yourself makes less sense than not owning yourself. This is confusing, can someone edit or explain?Vennificus (talk) 02:15, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

BP gas stations are franchises, each independently owned and operated. Kmusser (talk) 13:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Ecology

I have removed the following text from the Ecology section, but it keeps getting reinserted:

In their environmental analysis of the proposed well BP stated that in the unlikely event of an accidental spill "water quality would be temporarily affected by the decomposed components and small droplets", but that "currents and microbial degradation would remove the oil from the water column or dilute the constituents to the background level". They saw "no adverse activities to fisheries" and no danger to endangered or threatened marine mammals and no adverse impact to birds.

I previously removed the text because its a clear case of WP:PRIMARY, because its a primary source and WP:ORIGINAL, because its an analysis of published material that advances a position not advanced by the other sources. Can I go forward and remove the offending content?--Labattblueboy (talk) 11:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to the talk page for discussion. The sections I have quoted come right from the document. Perhaps due to inexperience, but I can not imagine why this document would be considered a primary source or original information. If I am not correct, I am sorry to have caused you irritation at needing to delete it three times, as I have felt the same when I restored it each time. The document is here: http://www.gomr.mms.gov/PI/PDFImages/PLANS/29/29977.pdf Gandydancer (talk) 12:59, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

No irritation at all, glad we can discuss it here. I think by accidental spill, the report is refering to a small spill not a large-scale blowout, that is why I believe its a case of systhesis. In anything I've read, BP never seriously envisioned that this sort of event would take place. IMO, I'd combine the above content with the Hayward statement of May 18 to read something along the lines of; "BP insisted the environmental impact of the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico would be very modest." Both refs would support that statement.--Labattblueboy (talk) 13:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I can accept that BP never seriously envisioned that this sort of event would take place in the same way, for instance, that a drunk driver never seriously envisioned that they would kill an innocent person while driving drunk, and yet thousands are killed every year. As for your suggestion that the plan did not envision a large spill, I note that they include the worst case "uncontrolled blowout" figure of 162,000 barrels per day, so obviously they were aware of the possibility of a massive spill. The US congress and the media refer to this document frequently, in fact Wikipedia uses it as a source, the 162,000 figure is just one example. The "48 miles to land" is another figure from this document that has been used frequently, with no one objecting that BP actually meant that they were just talking about a little spill. Gandydancer (talk) 14:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes primary documentation is appropriate. However, a primary source should only be used to make descriptive statements that can be verified by any educated person without specialist knowledge. I don't see that being the case her. If there are secondary sources that say the environmental impact analysis was written on the basis of a worst case scenario (162,00bbl/day), then I'd be more supportive of the statemets remaining. I have'nt seen any secondary sources have employed the listed quotes or provided anaylsis directly relating to them. There is no indication as to what size of a spill the listed analysis is provided against. The statements seem to relate more to the well planning than the ecological consequences.--Labattblueboy (talk) 20:44, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

It was commonly reported before the spill reached shore that the BP drill plan stated that due to the distance from the well, the shore line was not in danger. Here is one news report from CBS/AP dated 5/30:

BP's 52-page exploration plan for the Deepwater Horizon well, filed with the federal Minerals Management Service, says repeatedly that it was "unlikely that an accidental surface or subsurface oil spill would occur from the proposed activities."

And while the company conceded that a spill would impact beaches, wildlife refuges and wilderness areas, it argued that "due to the distance to shore (48 miles) and the response capabilities that would be implemented, no significant adverse impacts are expected."

I don't recall reading any reports where BP, MMS, members of congress, the media, or "experts" indicated that the environmental plan was based on a figure less than the worst-case scenario figure, which someone would have certainly done if that were the case. Gandydancer (talk) 13:06, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing that proactively indicates it one way or the other and thus we are left to assume, which is not appropriate. I see that we are at an impass so I have sent the issue off to the original research noticeboard to see if they can offer some guidance or a comprimise.--Labattblueboy (talk) 20:16, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I will be happy with what they decide. Gandydancer (talk) 22:05, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I keep removing my own comments as I see they are not helpful. The overview of my comments is that isolated analyses miss the point, I have seen marshes go extinct over many years because of constant unmeasurably small oil spills such as in New Jersey. Yet I understand, perhaps, that the point of recording species numbers BEFORE the spill is so the actual effect can be documented. T Hayward is very honest, it is not BP's job to care about the environment or to be careful. It is ours, I supppose. Species numbers will never tell the whole story of how much one spill affected the Gulf ecosystem and marshes, but numbers are better than nothing. I advise anyone living there, now is the time to take some 'before' pictures of the diversity of life in the Mississippi delta, in the Louisiana marshes.Createangelos (talk) 02:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Createangelos, please stop deleting your comments to article Discussion pages -- the holes left by such self-deletions after others have responded leave discussion pages as broken as a barrier island after a hurricane. Keep it up and your words of wisdom will soon be extinct -- or so you may think.

Archives are helpful: that's why they are easily searchable from the top of this Discussion page. You'll see there -- and even on this page this very day -- several suggestions that took days, and even weeks, before being incorporated into article, but only after notability, reliable sources, and issues of placement and prominence were addressed here. Be more patient or be more bold: or simply address the concerns and make a change. If reverted, you'll know better what was deemed lacking. In any case, you can make changes.

Do what you wish with your own words, of course, even after you have consigned them to eternal retrieval and reuse by virtue of writing them under CC-BY-SA 3.0 and the GFDL licenses, but that's my 2 cents. Wikipedia means never having to say I didn't say that.

BTW, I read you and responded, in my fashion. See the reference to Scientific American article -- received in the mail yesterday -- which I cited today as a new and improved reference for the last sentence of the Ecology section, referring to long-term effects. It briefly mentions a study in Panama documenting the annual ebb and flow of oil to and from marshlands following an oil spill, a sickly cycle lasting decades now. Give it a read, and relax, at least about this article and your helpful comments on it, if not its subject. Paulscrawl (talk) 03:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Preserve your words here. Paulscrawl (talk) 03:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

What editors normally do if they decide that their own previous comments are unhelpful is strike them. It looks like this. Thundermaker (talk) 14:11, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Paulscrawl, I did see your edit, didn't realize it was in response to me; it was one reason I felt OK deleting my comment, as it had been (I thought by coincidence) addressed. Thx for the tech help Thundermaker (see my comments above). Createangelos (talk) 19:34, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

And did you think it was OK to delete my comments as well? I should think it would just be common sense that you do not delete other people's comments. (Sorry, I'm a lot meaner than Paul and Thundermaker.) Ok, no hard feelings - onward we go! Gandydancer (talk) 22:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

yeah Gandy, you're a meanie. meanies suck. But you're a woman, right? Nevermind. Women are supposed to be mean. My bad :D MichaelWestbrook (talk) 22:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Alright Michael Westbrook and all of your HILARIOUS friends, just stop that LAUGHING this instant. This is WIKIPEDIA, read round the world, and as such there is no time for frivolity and hilarity, to say nothing of antiwomanhood, and so on and so forth. Gandydancer (talk) 00:21, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The above comment seems to be an attempt to derail a serious topic. Sorry, I don't know how to deal with this. Also if the issue with the tag is settled, the tag on this section should probably be removed. It really doesn't matter what BP said or did not say, the ecological consequences are serious considerations which do not warrant such interference by this editor. Createangelos (talk) 15:47, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Lighten up is the way to deal with it: no such attempt at derailment of serious topic implied in above off-topic comments by major contributors to this article. In any case, this page is for discussion of changes to article,, not topic itself (let alone editors - ahem). I removed Synthesis tag, as I see no remaining evidence of original synthesis in that section: all facts appear to be well cited. Paulscrawl (talk) 16:39, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Paul, I think you will need to put the tag back, as nothing is yet decided. You can see the issue here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard As you can see, the one and only person to respond feels that Labattblueboy is correct in his judgment. And, he may well be right. This could very well be one of the many ways that mega-corporations have figured out how to use and abuse the system. So far I'm not overly impressed with the Noticeboard. The issue just seems to sit there with nobody looking at it and in the meantime an important article will appear to be challenged regarding accuracy. Gandydancer (talk) 17:00, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done No synthesis tag needed. No decision needed from on high. See my added secondary source, which contains all quoted text in that paragraph. Paulscrawl (talk) 17:08, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Groovy! Good find. I must admit, however, I am beginning to think that I actually did not understand the problem in the first place, and still do not really get it... I shall read the whole thing again and see if I can figure out where and why it is not clear to me. Labattblueboy, thanks for being so easy to work with on this! Gandydancer (talk) 17:57, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

No problem. It is an important WP lesson to learn: a primary source can certainly be cited, but generally only when also cited with a secondary source which itself makes the interpretation, evaluation, analysis, synthesis, or selection summarized in the article. Quotes from a primary source, by their very selective nature, are necessarily interpretive and so must come from a cited secondary source. Hope that helps. WP:SECONDARY -- Paulscrawl (talk) 18:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I can understand that. However Labattblueboy asks for this:

If there are secondary sources that say the environmental impact analysis was written on the basis of a worst case scenario (162,00bbl/day), then I'd be more supportive of the statemets remaining. I have'nt seen any secondary sources have employed the listed quotes or provided anaylsis directly relating to them. There is no indication as to what size of a spill the listed analysis is provided against. The statements seem to relate more to the well planning than the ecological consequences.--Labattblueboy (talk) 20:44, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Your ref does not provide that information. It uses a different figure. Just my opinion of course, but IMO Labattblueboy knows more about oil than the rest of us combined, and he understands a lot more about this issue than he is willing to disclose. Don't misunderstand me, I am not suggesting and I do not believe that he is being dishonest, I am only suggesting that he knows a lot more about this issue than the rest of us. Gandydancer (talk) 20:09, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

We work with what sources we have available to work with. That the secondary source does not provide what complete context and total elimination of ambiguity one might like to see in the best of all possible worlds is no reason at all not to include it: most news stories are like that. As it stands, the 1st paragraph is completely referenced by, and with all quotes contained in, the secondary source. I've changed the descriptive phrase from "environmental analysis" (which requirement MMS waived with categorical exclusion) to "exploration plan" and now we're done with this. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 21:54, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

• Labattblueboy, this thread you initiated would be a lot easier for previously uninvolved third parties to offer an informed opinion if you had provided diffs. Could you please provide diffs if you ever raise a similar issue? If you don't agree that this issue is settled, could you please provide diffs showing the additions or removals of the passage in question now? Geo Swan (talk) 22:11, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

My apology to gd if I misunderstood what was taking place. Lot to learn about Wikipedia.Createangelos (talk) 04:37, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the lack of participation over the past little bit, I've been moving so I've been offline. I can't say I am entirely satisfied, because I am certain the content will get flagged for removal or clarification during a GAN, but I think there are more important things to address than such a minor element of the ecology section. I'd be more comfortable if we placed the direct ecological consequences first and made the disputed content the third paragraph.--Labattblueboy (talk) 02:47, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Why does the Ecology section end with a quote from Thad Allen who has no environmental expertise, and it refers to 'clean up' when some ecologists think it is not possible to do anything about the oil damage (to wetlands, coral reefs etc) but to accept it. Before there was a quote saying the effects may last decades (or permanently). Now there is a quote by someone unqualified talking about how long the clean up will take. Yes that is valid etc but is it important enough to be the final sentence? It's not too bad, just seems to me the main issue is the question of any permanent effects, rather than a promise of a coast guard official to clean it up afterwards, however kind that may be.Createangelos (talk) 09:28, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Criticism of Obama

Here in the UK there has been a lot of criticism of Obama and his perceived anti-Britishness, brought about over several percieved points:

• The blaming of BP prior to a proper enquiry with contractors such as Haliburton failing to undergo the same scrutiny.

• His referal to 'BP' as 'British Petroleum', a name that has not been used by the company for many years.

• Perceived double-standards on a few points:

• The high demand for oil in the US creates a demand for unsutainable deep-water drilling.
• The scale of this incident compared to others, often exacerbated by US demand for oil.
• The death of 156 British engineers on the American-owned Piper Alpha rig in 1988 due to a lack of implementation of work-permits.

Should this article address these criticisms.

Mtaylor848 (talk) 22:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Oppose, on the grounds that none of that is relevant to the case at hand. I suppose you could mention that the US is attempting to hold a UK-based multinational corporation responsible for the worst oil spill in US history, and that this is unpopular in the UK because many pensioners there happen to be stock holders in BP. It should also be pointed out, should you do so, that many Americans also own BP stock. I suppose we could also include a section on the Bhopal page explaining that many people who own stock in Dow are really nice people, and that they shouldn't be sued for industrial accidents. I'm not sure what that would contribute to the article. Geogene (talk) 22:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the section, "Pensions", above, is also relevant. Geogene (talk) 23:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

While I am neither advocating nor opposing these arguments, they are arguments that have been put forward and anger towards the Obama government is rife in the press. This stance has veen prevelent enough to make it notable, its been in many papers and even dominated the second half of Question Time.Mtaylor848 (talk) 07:39, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Sir Michael Taylor, this user does not understand your British English and doesn't bloody well want to. :D MichaelWestbrook (talk) 08:04, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

'Sir Michael Taylor' oooh, prefixing a name with 'sir' is very elitist in these egalitarian days! Mtaylor848 (talk) 09:03, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Support. Seeing as there is already a section entitled public reaction, I agree with Mtaylor that the strain on the Anglo-American special relationship is IMO sufficiently noteworthy to deserve a mention. The widely reported view here in the UK is that there has definitely been an air of anti-Britishness about the Obama response, and our media has been quick to pick up on it. Limey hurt feelings might not be a big news story on your side of the pond Mr Westbrook, but it is here...

At the very least, this section of the article should contain something like "President Obama's response has attempted to identify this disaster as a foreign mistake, despite large involvement from many US corporations. Furthermore, his repeated referal to BP by its historic title 'British Petroleum' has angered the British press and put strain on Anglo-American political relations." Traveller palm (talk) 13:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I would support inclusion about how and why the Brits may view the crisis somewhat differently in the article. While there is plenty of fault to find with BP, the criticism in the US has sometimes been downright childish, the absolute outrage at the word "small" for example. I watched the congressional hearings yesterday, and while some congressmen/women were excellent, there was far too much puffed-up-self-serving-yipping going on, for example the congressman who first asked Hayward what day it was, and then after asking questions he knew darn well Hayward would/could not answer, he oh so cleverly concluded, "Well, he answered one question anyway!" That was just nauseating. Gandydancer (talk) 14:54, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Before we judge if it deserves inclusion, are there sources on this? If reputable third parties have commented on how the US government seems to want to emphasize British involvement, it may be relevant. I've seen it suggested by the Economist (here) that the US media is doing so, but not anything about the Government. TastyCakes (talk) 16:13, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

This article from the New York Times reports British support for BP against US condemnation. I think this may be worth mentioning in the "reactions" section... TastyCakes (talk)

I remain in disagreement with any attempt to editorialize in the article that the United States' need for oil, rather than the companies involved, "created" this disaster. I support inclusion of the public reaction in the UK into the article. Perhaps that section could be divided into US reaction / UK reaction sections? Your source is a good start, it seems to show anti-Americanism emerging over the spill in the UK and elsewhere in Europe. For example:

"Comments on British message boards this week have been full of anger at the United States."

And...

"The rest of the world is fed up with the parasitic attitude of the U.S...As a Dutch citizen, I used to be a supporter of the U.S., but not anymore. You want the oil? You clean up the mess."

This is worthy of notice and should be included in the article. Geogene (talk) 22:50, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I can tell you that is is not worthy of inclusion, nor is it encyclopedic. What one Dutch citizen thinks about the US is irrelevant. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 02:40, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe you misunderstood. If there is a lasting and significant anti-US outcry in the UK and Europe as a result of the spill, it belongs in the article. However, the difficulty in sourcing this argues against inclusion. Geogene (talk) 14:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

The public reaction in Britain should be distinguished from the PR efforts of BP. I would suggest that, whilst it is the case that a number of UK news outlets are happily assisting BP in a campaign to make something out of nothing, the majority of British people are not taken in. Please lets not have any content about public opinion in the UK without polling to back it up. --FormerIP (talk) 22:36, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Well I'm in general agreement, but the article currently presents dubious measures of American public opinion as well. Korn's choice of fuel and the size of the facebook page being the obvious examples. TastyCakes (talk) 14:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, this might be interesting: I have a Hot or Not profile, and before June there were British women adding me to their HOT or NOT network daily. I adore British women, always have, always will. But since June? Not a single British woman will give me the time of day. I suggest we include my hotornot profile in the article, and how I have gone from being a popular Yankee with the ladies across the pond to a grotesque monster from the States. I was "hot", now I'm "not". I could provide reliable sources to that end. Let me know and I'll get right on it. MichaelWestbrook (talk) 23:53, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I have independent information confirming that you are Not. This is not connected to the oil leak. Sorry. --FormerIP (talk) 00:16, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Whether or not there is any substance in these allegations is immaterial. Despite the environmental disaster and the certain culpability of BP (although quite to what extent is the question) the welfare of a stretch of coast line thousands of miles away that people have never visited does not keep people awake at night, their shares in BP and pensions do (although my sympathy is not particularly strong as I am fervently against the Thatcherite privatisation of BP). For this reason and this reason only the reaction in the UK and much of Europe has not really had all that much to do with the oil spill per se, but rather the allegations pointed at BP and result on the share price, the FTSE etc. I don't think the issue is anything to do with the substance behind these allegations, more the fact that they have enough notability due to the fact that they have been reported on so heavily in the press. Mtaylor848 (talk) 08:59, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

There don't seem to be many sources on anti-Americanism in the UK because of this, so I haven't added anything in this regard. I now think it was just typical tabloid journalism of no lasting importance. My support is withdrawn, for now. Geogene (talk) 14:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I think there has been some fairly high brow British criticism of the US government's actions and attitude towards BP (see here and here). TastyCakes (talk) 22:16, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

It is a Leak, not a Spill

A spill is a one-time, limited event as in the Exxon Valdez. This is an ongoing 'leak'; this article title is misleading. Most news sources are correcting themselves when they accidentally refer to this as a spill, Wikipedia should as well. 72.213.22.87 (talk) 18:38, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh they are not. This topic has come up again and again right from day one. It is bad for your emotional and intellectual health to never get anything settled. Go to the NYT's full coverage page and count the leaks and count the spills and then come back and tell us what you got. Plus, this spill is limited; it just might take a very, very long time. Gandydancer (talk) 21:23, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

There are differing opinions, the scientists say this is not a spill, spills refer to something spilling out of, say a tanker carrying oil. Why don't we seek the opinion of scientists rather than each other or NYT? 72.213.22.87 (talk) 15:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a source supporting your claim? TastyCakes (talk) 15:48, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I will look for one in print, it was derived from watching the news on cable. Meantime, here is an article on the subject: [[1]] 72.213.22.87 (talk) 16:00, 21 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.213.22.87 (talk) 15:57, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that many scientists (as well as the media) seem to be calling it a spill... TastyCakes (talk) 15:03, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Just ran across this:

"7. It's a "Spill"

Myth. We keep calling it the Gulf oil spill. But it's a gusher, a geyser, a "four-dimensional catastrophe," in the words of one fisheries expert: "'Leak' is totally wrong. A leak is something you wrap duct tape around and maybe get to next week, next month or next year. The 'gusher in the Gulf' sounds way too cute. It's not exactly a spill: that's maybe something between your kitchen and your dining room table. 'Spill' sounds like a pool. It's two-dimensional. This is very much a three-dimensional or, rather, a four-dimensional catastrophe," said Douglas N. Rader, chief ocean scientist for the Environmental Defense Fund. "I think a whole new language is going to have to be developed to discuss accidents – events – environmental catastrophes of this magnitude. Nothing quite like it exists." [[2]] 72.198.208.7 (talk) 02:01, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't sound like a scientist's writing to me... TastyCakes (talk) 22:04, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

This website gives very good arguments as to why this should be called a blowout, and not a spill. I wonder if this goes into the domain of Original Research. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 16:00, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

"Oil Spill" reflects the business friendly (or business controlled) US culture. Even a BP PR person couldn't come up with a friendlier term. What in German is called Ölpest and in french marée noire, "black tide", in English is a harmless "spill". Whereas the 9/11 terror attacks were quickly dramatized as "war on america", harm caused by business is presented in very harmless terms in the US (unless the business is a foreign car manufacturer). The title of the German version of this article is "Ölkatastrophe im Golf von Mexiko". The archived discussion about naming the article mainly revolves around BP or not, whereas the real issue is that we should call this what it is: a catastrophe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.199.119 (talk) 03:42, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the notion that "oil spill" conjures up a harmless, understated image in English-speaking culture has been out of date since at least the Exxon Valdez. I disagree with putting "catastrophe" in the name because it requires a judgment on the part of Wikipedia editors. If "catastrophe" was commonly used in reference to the spill in the media and so on, then you'd have more of a case. I suspect that "Ölkatastrophe" is the way the spill is commonly referred to in German, which is why the article was named that way. But "Catastrophe in the Gulf" is not the common name in English by any measure and therefore I think it is inappropriate. TastyCakes (talk) 22:04, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Also see wp:common name#Non-neutral but common names for why I think the German article is named as it is. TastyCakes (talk) 22:05, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

We have to go with what the sources call it rather than inventing something based on our point of view. As an example, the Bayeux Tapestry is not a tapestry, it's an embroidery. But it's called a tapestry, so that's what we call it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Seabed fractured?

Confusing spiel

A dire report circulating in the Kremlin today that was prepared for Prime Minister Putin by Anatoly Sagalevich of Russia's Shirshov Institute of Oceanology warns that the Gulf of Mexico sea floor has been fractured "beyond all repair" and our World should begin preparing for an ecological disaster "beyond comprehension" unless "extraordinary measures" are undertaken to stop the massive flow of oil into our Planet's eleventh largest body of water. Most important to note about Sagalevich's warning is that he and his fellow scientists from the Russian Academy of Sciences are the only human beings to have actually been to the Gulf of Mexico oil leak site after their being called to the disaster scene by British oil giant BP shortly after the April 22nd sinking of the Deepwater Horizon oil platform. BP's calling on Sagalevich after this catastrophe began is due to his being the holder of the World's record for the deepest freshwater dive and his expertise with Russia's two Deep Submergence Vehicles MIR 1 and MIR 2 [photo below] which are able to take their crews to the depth of 6,000 meters (19,685 ft). According to Sagalevich's report, the oil leaking into the Gulf of Mexico is not just coming from the 22 inch well bore site being shown on American television, but from at least 18 other sites on the "fractured seafloor" with the largest being nearly 11 kilometres (7 miles) from where the Deepwater Horizon sank and is spewing into these precious waters an estimated 2 million gallons of oil a day. Interesting to note in this report is Sagalevich stating that he and the other Russian scientists were required by the United States to sign documents forbidding them to report their findings to either the American public or media, and which they had to do in order to legally operate in US territorial waters. However, Sagalevich says that he and the other scientists gave nearly hourly updates to both US government and BP officials about what they were seeing on the sea floor, including the US Senator from their State of Florida Bill Nelson who after one such briefing stated to the MSNBC news service "Andrea we're looking into something new right now, that there's reports of oil that's seeping up from the seabed... which would indicate, if that's true, that the well casing itself is actually pierced... underneath the seabed. So, you know, the problems could be just enormous with what we're facing." Though not directly stated in Sagalevich's report, Russian scientists findings on the true state of the Gulf of Mexico oil disaster are beyond doubt being leaked to his long-time friend, and former US President George W. Bush's top energy advisor Matthew Simmons, who US media reports state has openly said: "Matthew Simmons is sticking by his story that there's another giant leak in the Gulf of Mexico blowing massive amounts of oil into the Gulf of Mexico. On CNBC's Fast Money, he says he'd be surprised if BP lasted this summer, saying this is disaster is entirely BP's fault." As a prominent oil-industry insider, and one of the World's leading experts on peak oil, Simmons further warns that the US has only two options, "let the well run dry (taking 30 years, and probably ruining the Atlantic ocean) or nuking the well." Obama's government, on the other hand, has stated that a nuclear option for ending this catastrophe is not being discussed, but which brings him into conflict with both Russian and American experts advocating such an extreme measure before all is lost, and as we can read as reported by Britain's Telegraph News Service: "The former Soviet Union (U.S.S.R.) used nuclear weapons on five separate occasions between 1966 and 1981 to successfully cap blown-out gas and oil surface wells (there was also one attempt that failed), which have been documented in a U..S. Department of Energy report on the U.S.S.R.'s peaceful uses of nuclear explosions. Russia is now urging the United States to consider doing the same. Komsomoloskaya Pravda, the best-selling Russian daily newspaper, asserts that although based on Soviet experience there's a one-in-five chance a nuke might not seal the well, it's "a gamble the Americans could certainly risk." Reportedly, the U.S.S.R. developed special nuclear devices explicitly for closing blown-out gas wells, theorizing that the blast from a nuclear detonation would plug any hole within 25 to 50 meters, depending on the device's power. Much as I had idly imagined, massive explosions can be employed to collapse a runaway well on itself, thus plugging, or at least substantially stanching, the flow of oil. "Seafloor nuclear detonation is starting to sound surprisingly feasible and appropriate," University of Texas at Austin mechanical engineer Michael E. Webber is quoted observing, while Columbia University visiting scholar on nuclear policy and former naval officer Christopher Brownfield wrote in the Daily Beast: "We should have demolished this well with explosives over a month ago. And yet we watch in excruciating suspense while BP fumbles through plan after plan to recover its oil and cover its asset." As to the reason for Obama's government refusing to consider nuking this oil well, Sagalevich states in this report that the American's "main concern" is not the environmental catastrophe this disaster is causing, but rather what the impact of using a nuclear weapon to stop this leak would have on the continued production of oil from the Gulf of Mexico, and which in an energy starved World's remains the Planet's only oil producing region able to increase its production. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.182.164.60 (talk) 13:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC) A few grains of truth in that and certainly the possibility of seabed fracture is a legitimate concern, but greatly exaggerated and distorted reporting. Discussed in section above in any case. The source for that by the way is one Sorcha Faal, Scientists Warn Gulf Of Mexico Sea Floor Fractured “Beyond Repair”, June 10, 2010 posting on the very odd site whatdoesitmean.com, which also broke on May 23 the story no one seems to have paid sufficient attention to: Oil Spill Rains Warned Could Destroy North America In related news, and from a reliable source that is actually citable in a Wikipedia article, Lisa Miller, Religion editor of Newsweek, noted on June 4: Blood in the Water: to some Christian fundamentalists, the oil plume in the Gulf of Mexico heralds the apocalypse. Paulscrawl (talk) 15:33, 24 June 2010 (UTC) Should we not delete talk sections like this? Seems like a big waste of time and space to include what appears to be a made up news cast of strung together misrepresentations. TastyCakes (talk) 21:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC) Or simply archive immediately -- whatever you decide is fine with me. Paulscrawl (talk) 13:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC) I've tried to read it a few times but just can't make it past a few words... But I don't like to see anything deleted unless it is against wikipedia policy - which this does not appear to be for a talk page. Or is there some policy I'm not aware of? Gandydancer (talk) 14:48, 30 June 2010 (UTC) I'm not well versed on the finer points, but in general I think talk page discussion is supposed to be constructive, which I don't think this is. I agree deleting seems a bit heavy handed, maybe I'll put it in a little hat and wait for it to get archived... TastyCakes (talk) 15:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, good move Tasty. I'm sure that if the Wikipedia police were to take a look at my posts, they could find a-plenty that are not verey "constructive" either. Gandydancer (talk) 22:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Health Effects, Respirator Distribution

This subsection contains the anecdote,

LEAN has been distributing protective gear to the first responders, however LEAN's director reported that BP has threatened to fire their workers if they use them.

Apart from the misuse of the term "first responder", I'm concerned that people less familiar with Federal regulations regarding hazardous waste cleanup (e.g., 29 CFR 1910) might not understand why BP can't let their workers use unapproved PPE. Without that context it looks like this sentence is intended to be a jab at BP. I recommend striking it from the article. Geogene (talk) 14:45, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

That's now how Wikipedia works, you don't just strike information if it's true. You add and explain if that's what is needed. 174.74.2.72 (talk) 23:26, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Geogene, could you please provide some references? Gandydancer (talk) 00:33, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Gandydancer and anonymous, citing the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations in the article as a means of explaining BP's legal and regulatory obligations in regards to voluntary mask-use by employees would be WP:SYNTHESIS. Leaving the statement as it is would merely be deliberately misleading and tendentious. In order to provide context, we need a published source that is critical of LEAN. There are none, because LEAN's accusations apparently are not considered significant enough to warrant discussion in any other place than this article. LEAN's website also contains fringe-y material, specifically their opposition to fluoridated water. I don't know that we should give much weight to their accusations. I consider all these issues justification for removing this from the article, and using government sources to fill that space.

I'd also point out that the burden of proof rests on editors that want to include information in an article, not on the editors that challenge information. In an article this long we can afford to be selective of what references we use, and what facts to include.

If you want to know the regulations, 29 CFR 1910.134(c)(2)(i & ii) are the relevant issues. Employers are allowed to permit employees to voluntarily wear respirators or use their own respirators in a non-hazardous atmosphere "if the employer determines that such respirator use will not in itself create a hazard" (i). (Respirators promote heat stress, and increase the physiological burden of performing work.) Employers are required to establish a written respirator use program and obtain medical waivers for all personnel (at no cost to employee, see Standard Interpretation dated 23 December 1998) that bring their own respirators, and are responsible for ensuring that all respirators are "cleaned, stored, and maintained" so as not to present a health hazard to the user, again at no cost to employee (see OSHA's interpretation letter cited above and subsection ii). The last requirement is that all employees voluntarily wearing respirators receive Appendix D.

http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=STANDARDS&p_id=12716

http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=STANDARDS&p_id=9784

http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=INTERPRETATIONS&p_id=22672

The necessary criteria for medical evaluation before an employee is allowed to use a respirator are listed under 1910.134(e), and the other things like "written program" are also defined elsewhere in standards.

To merely state that LEAN handed out free respirators to workers, and that "BP threatened to fire" their workers that used them is misleading without an appreciation of the complexity of the issue, and seems to be designed to make it seem BP deliberately harms their workers. (Wearing a respirator while working in 90 degree heat can be pretty harmful too for anyone in less than ideal physical condition.) The best solution is to delete it from the article, and replace LEAN with Department of Health sources. There are some legitimate concerns regarding worker exposure that can be sourced elsewhere. Geogene (talk) 14:21, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Geogene. I watched the video provided in the article, quickly looked at LEAN's website, and even more quickly glanced at the OSHA sites you offered. I think you bring up some good points, however you have not convinced me that the material should be removed.

• Calling the workers "first responders" may seem a little odd, however Olbermann called them first responders as well - perhaps this terminology is more of a problem for you than the rest of us?
• The MSN Olbermann coverage may be slanted against BP - who isn't these days? - but it is a broadcast by a major TV network, and if they had no problem with contacting LEAN, I don't see why our article should need to see LEAN as fringe.
• The actions of BP so far that are fairly well documented, such as gagging workers and calling their illnesses "food poisoning", suggests to most people that they would, without qualms, prohibit workers from wearing masks because that may suggest there may be poisoness fumes in the air. Furthermore, it seems that they had a "Dr. Ott" in the previous show who stated that workers should be wearing masks. Of course, other editors may see this differently and I hope that they offer their views as well. Gandydancer (talk) 16:38, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Olbermann is on a major network, but so are a lot of other cable news commentators also on major networks (see MSNBC's biggest competitor) that wouldn't necessarily make for reliable sources. You may approve of using an Olbermann interview but how do you feel about a Bill O'Reilly interview? FOX or MSNBC, they're all the same ilk, they have commentary programs that aren't necessarily up to the same journalistic standards that hard news is normally expected to be. Simply because he had their spokesperson on for five or ten minutes doesn't make that person a reliable source or expert in the field. You too can have your own network if you rent a satellite feed and talk some cable outlets into subscribing. It's my opinion that the fluoridated water issue is fringe, but that may just be me.

There are a number of problems with your third point: "fairly well documented"..."gagging workers"..."suggests to most people"..."may suggest"..."there may be". I am not ruling out that BP "may be" exposing workers to hazardous conditions. Certainly we can't prove they aren't. Some state authorities (linked in the report) have written OSHA with the same concerns. In this case I have a content dispute with a specific statement that I take to be misleading. In fact that's a clever PR move by LEAN because there's no way for BP to respond. If I am allowed to speculate, as you did, had BP allowed the respirators and gotten all the medical clearances, done all the paperwork, and concluded that they presented no hazard, then when some worker collapsed from a heat stroke 30 miles offshore, some BP manager would have to explain to a jury in a worker's comp trial why they had allowed respirators when there was no benefit but increased risk. LEAN might have nothing but the best intentions, but a side-effect is that they have created a lose/lose situation for BP. Geogene (talk) 17:40, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I think a simple search for a WP:SECONDARY source solves Geogene's legitimate concerns over LEAN's half truths, without necesitating WP:PRIMARY sources or needless digression re: legal constraints on their mandated use. Revised with 1st Google News result for search on "respirator oil spill" which cites federal & saftey officials' (OSHA, though not stated in source) refusal to mandate respirator use for concerns over heat exhaustion. Revised to:

"LEAN's director reported that BP has threatened to fire their workers if they use respirators distributed by LEAN, though health and safety officials have not required their use, as they may exacerbate risks of heat exhaustion"

Paulscrawl (talk) 17:55, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I find that agreeable. Geogene (talk) 18:29, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Very good! Geogene I really do want to compliment you on your excellent post in response to my post. And, if the truth be known, my impression of LEAN's action was that they, while perhaps concerned about the worker's health, were very well aware of the impact of their "concern". Gandydancer (talk) 19:39, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Requested move to 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill

Deepwater Horizon oil spill → 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill — There has been a lot of discussion about renaming this page, I'm not going to repeat it all. Most of you remember what you've said in the past, those of you who are new, please take time to read the archives. Most of us can agree that Deepwater Horizon oil spill is incorrect. Most of you have also made it clear that renaming this page to anything that includes a company name won't be accepted. There was acceptance for using Gulf of Mexico oil spill except that there was valid concern that this wasn't and will not be the only oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. I believe that adding the year will resolve that concern. Hopefully, this requested move discussion will be the last one and we can all agree on 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill as a factually correct, NPOV, and proper name for this page. Jcarle (talk) 00:33, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

Support - Suggested name is more descriptive and more widely used. --WikiDonn (talk) 01:39, 26 June 2010 (UTC) Support 96.49.39.81 (talk) 05:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

Can we go one week without debating this? It's a bit too much! Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 00:34, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Sadly, it'll have to be discussed until concensus is reached for a new, correct name for this article. Each time a new name is suggested, we have to go through this process, one name at a time. Each name suggestion can take up to two weeks or longer. Jcarle (talk) 00:38, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Which is what we call forum shopping, and is highly discouraged. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 00:50, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

It's not forum shopping because it is a different name, and it's the same forum. It was a good idea to request this because there was a lot of consensus for this name on the other request because it is both widely used, and doesn't assign blame to anyone. --WikiDonn (talk) 01:45, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I am calling for this request to be rescinded, it's much too soon after the last request to move, which failed. I refuse to participate in the survey. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 01:47, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

It only appears like forum shopping because of the way Requested Moves are done. We can only vote on a single proposal at a time, so although most people agree that the current name is incorrect, "which" new name would be better is up for discussion. So the repeated move requests have been the results of the back and forth discussions of each move requests. I believe, based upon all previous discussions in the past, that this is finally the most appropriate name for this page, one which I believe everyone could agree with. Jcarle (talk) 06:11, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose further Requested move Surveys

  Sadly, it'll have to be discussed until consensus is reached

  reminds me, sadly, of

“ The beatings will continue until morale improves. ”

Let's instead encourage editors to spend their limited time and energy on getting the eponymous article, 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill, into good article status. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 02:32, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Just make a disambiguation page for Gulf of Mexico Oil spills and one for BP oil spills if you feel the need. The current name for this page is the best and is correct and it doesn't assign blame to anyone as you suggested. Changing the name to coincide with search engine optimization is also inappropriate. UB65 (talk) 02:48, 27 June 2010 (UTC)comment editedUB65 (talk) 04:05, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Um, it assigns blame on Deepwater Horizon doesn't it? I never even heard of this company before these move requests here. --WikiDonn (talk) 22:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Deepwater Horizon is not a company, but drilling rig, which exploded. Beagel (talk) 22:28, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. I fully concur with UB65, including his/her observations about apparent conflict of interest. --Coolcaesar (talk) 02:52, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose this particular name (don't like "2010", wordy), however strongly oppose suggesting an editor's feeling about improving an article anywhere on Wikipedia be trivialized based on timing or repetition. I do not see this thread guilty of forum shopping. I do understand how it could lean that way under a certain perception, but I find that perception skewed. MichaelWestbrook (talk) 16:28, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose any name change. Yawn. Kittybrewster ☎ 18:36, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Kitty yawns; Gandy groans. Enough already. There may come a time for a name change, but it is clearly not now. Gandydancer (talk) 19:09, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support renaming the article to BP Oil Spill. That is the official name of the incident for both the US and UK governments, and it is what the majority of media outlets refer to it as. 98.248.180.183 (talk) 21:31, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose name change - There is already a redirect from BP oil spill. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - In a short while, it will probably be completely obvious what this article should be called. When that happens, let's change the title. --FormerIP (talk) 23:59, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose FormerIP said it perfectly. --Labattblueboy (talk) 03:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't call this an oil spill, it's not an oil spill

An oil spill would be if oil was spilled and then has to be cleaned up, but this is not a mere spill. Exxon Valdez was an oil spill. This is something that keeps spewing oil. Calling this an oil spill is like calling a volcano a magma spill. I suggest the description of this event is changed into something without the word "spill". Counteraction (talk) 16:13, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

You should try to get in the habit of checking previous discussions to see if someone else has also come up with your brilliant thoughts. Gandydancer (talk) 16:51, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support "Deepwater Horizon volcano". Brilliant idea, mate. :D MichaelWestbrook (talk) 18:19, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

• • What do the sources call it? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:33, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

A leak. --Kuzwa (talk) 23:44, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the money controls the PR, which determines what is in the Reliable Sources, which govern what we are allowed to write. --FormerIP (talk) 23:49, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

My sources call it a "volcano". The same sources that said North Korea torpedoed the well, that martian aliens beamed a big laser down from Mars to the Deepwater Horizon, that Darth Vader lightsabered the BOP blowout preventer, and that Obi-Wan Kenobi was summoned to Capitol Hill for subcommittee members to question his lack of regulation, suggesting the Force was "in bed" with the Dark Side. I believe my sources to be reliable sources. :D MichaelWestbrook (talk) 05:18, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Should we include a chart to depict how deep the well penetrated the earth's crust?

Something along these lines: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_crust Smashingsuccess (talk) 11:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

MSNBC has a new article called "Red tape keeps Gulf marsh cleanup on hold."

link

I think this has some useful information that could be used to improve the article.

71.182.185.53 (talk) 16:48, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

International offers of assistance

I'm tagging this section NPOV because it does not discuss "international offers of assistance" but instead discusses disputes regarding the facts about only the Dutch offer and more than half the citations are to a single editorial piece by a well-known global warming crank. Gamaliel (talk) 23:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

• Added several refs and info on other assistance offers, along with details on the Jones Act and yesterday's announcement of 22 newly-accepted international offers. If this addresses your concern, please remove the template. If not, please detail your objections. Thanks. Lfstevens (talk) 03:11, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
• This section is either not needed or should be merged into the international governments section under reactions. ---Labattblueboy (talk) 03:20, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done I removed this entire subsection. It is inappropriate in this section of the article, and we already have a section devoted to international government response, so after meticulously researching every word of every source cited, I found only the last two sentences viable with relevance and RS, so I moved them to the subsection "International governments" under the "Reactions" section. We must keep the article as concise as possible. MichaelWestbrook (talk) 03:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Disagree Needless to say, I disagree with the removal and with doing so without addressing the above response. The sources were articles from multiple reputable newspapers and were not contradicted either in the objection or in cites of other sources. I have no objection to relocating the material to the International Government section. Lfstevens (talk) 04:16, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Nice work. Gamaliel (talk) 15:04, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Merged the two sections, with yet still more refs. Also removed material from the Financial Post piece that seems to have started this fracas. Lfstevens (talk) 21:41, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

buried with numbers

this should get cleaned up to minimum. More numbers to put in in tables. (Some template existing for that purpose?) --Itu (talk) 02:27, 1 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)

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)

Primary unit of measure & bbl

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

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)

Comparative units of measurement

Sections like Deepwater_Horizon_oil_spill#Spill_flow_rate contain a wall of zeros. A large percentage of visitors come to the article to find out three things:

• How much oil is coming out every day.
• How much oil already came out.
• How much of the gulf is covered.

To the average Joe, 580 square miles generates a mental picture, but not as good as comparing it to a known landmass. I know that stating "...an area the size of Alabama..." or the like, is not a very encylopedic way of putting things. But, consider the visitors. They want a mental picture to put things into perspective.

Moreover, when referring to volume, figures of great magnitude are meaningless to most. Stating "25,000,000 barrels or gallons" or whatever produces no mental picture whatsoever. Most people simply can't think in terms of millions.

I know that a subsection about "comparative measurement" sounds dumb and trivial, but think of the visitors. As Wikipedia is so commonly cited, I suggest giving readers something tangible to quote. Johnny Lunchbox will never say to Mable Jones: "25,540,000 gallons leaked out". But many will remember and cite x amount of olympic swimming pools, or stadiums filled with oil.

The above paragraph is a dumb idea. I wrote it in the hope that an editor will come up with a clever way to satisfy the visitors' need for a mental picture. (Sorry about the long thread.) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:38, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Anna, I don't think it is so dumb at all. I always try to keep in mind the fact that Wikipedia is not just like the encyclopedias that I grew up with, only more up to date and on a computer. It is our document, and I should think that we can try new ideas...Gandydancer (talk) 05:14, 2 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)

Government obstacles to cleanup

I added this. It is relevant, notable, and well sourced:

The Environmental Protection Agency bans the use of skimmers that leave more than 15 parts per million of oil in the water. So, for example, skimmers that only clean up 99.9% of the oil are banned, because they still leave 100 parts per million in the water. Many large skimmers which could have been used to clean up the spill were not used, because they exceeded this limit.

During the first two weeks after the spill, 13 foreign governments offered their assistance in cleanup, but the U.S. government turned them down.

In mid-June, the Coast Guard ordered 16 barges, which had been cleaning up oil, to stop cleanup for more than 24 hours, because it had to confirm that they had fire extinguishers and life vests on board.

Back on the Chain Gang (talk) 07:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I reverted your edit with sufficient edit summary of my revert. See edit summary and consider proper placement of information. MichaelWestbrook (talk) 08:00, 2 July 2010 (UTC)