Talk:Deepwater Horizon oil spill

Same day company started trading on Swiss SIX exchange

An explosion and fire is not the sort of thing that goes well with http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=113031&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1411769&highlight=

How deep?

How deep is the water where it sank? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.232.94.33 (talk) 20:51, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

About 5000 feet. Beagel (talk) 21:39, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Drill depth

The specifications of the rig are available right here. http://www.deepwater.com/fw/main/Deepwater-Horizon-56C15.html?LayoutID=17 Max drill depth is 30,000 feet. The 5,500 foot number in this article is clearly incorrect, especially when the maximum water depth is 8,000 feet (upgradeable to 10,000, but of course not now after sinking). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.232.94.33 (talk) 20:56, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Ensure that you distinguish between the ACTUAL location water depth (some 5000+ feet), borehole depth, and the maximum drilling depth (water and borehole) specifications for the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig (water depth: 8000 feet or 10000 feet with upgrades; borehole 30000 feet.) HerbM (talk) 07:04, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

relief efforts

If you read the source, you would see this information is there:

Relief well:

Engineers are working on a dome-like device to cover oil rising to the surface and pump it to container vessels, but it may be weeks before this is in place.

BP is also working on a "relief well" to intersect the original well, but this is experimental and could take two to three months to stop the flow.

Also, this information is NOT 'How to', this is inportant information regarding activies that are underway. Aalox (talk) 15:48, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

As it was it read more like "how to stop an oil leak", but that aside, the information you added:

If unable to close the blow out preventer (BOP) valves on the well head 5000 feet below the surface of the water using the ROV two other options remain to secure the source. The first and fastest is to place a dome over the well head capturing the oil and piping it to the surface to a storage vessel, this operation will take some time as the dome will have to be fabricated. The next option would be to bring in another drilling rig and either re-drill the well straight down, (as done in Australia), or cross drill from a little ways away and tap into the original borehole. Once the second drilling operation reaches the original borehole the operators could then pump drilling mud into the well to stop the flow of oil.

is three times the information you're quoting from the source and almost none of it is in the source (I've read the source- I'm the one who added it to the article) which makes the information original research and/or unpublished synthesis unless it's in another source, in which case you'll have to cite that for verifiability. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:48, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Then add information not in the source, delete information not in the source, or rephrase the information and leave the factual sourced essenece of it alone.' There was absolutely no reason to delete the entire paragraph.Aalox (talk) 16:55, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

There's no policy or guideline that requires me to tag it, but there is one that requires all information to be attributed to a reliable source. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:59, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I know about WP:V, I also know that is says "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed, but how quickly this should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article. Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. It has always been good practice to make reasonable efforts to find sources oneself that support such material, and cite them"

I Still maintain that There was absolutely no reason to delete the entire paragraph. I admit, last part of with details on re-drilling the well still lacked WP:V, but the remainder of it was sound and should not have been deleted. Aalox (talk) 17:09, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Then why did you restore material that clearly violates a core content policy? While we're quoting policy, let's go with "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material"- that's in bold face on WP:V. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:22, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I admitted my error in restoring the parts that were non-verified. What more do you want? Why can't you just jump off your high horse admit your error in DELETING VERIFIED information alongside the non-verified? Aalox (talk) 18:54, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

OK then, some of the information was verified. Now, changing the subject, I've nominated this article for ITN again in relation to the oil slick, but it'll need a bit of an update- I scraped something together from the BBC source earlier, but it could use a little more. The nomination is at WP:ITN/C#Oil slick in Gulf of Mexico if you're interested. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:14, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

IMHO it's entirely understandable to delete the whole thing if some adds a paragraph and only a tiny bit of it is in the source. It's ludicrious to expect someone to find out exactly which bit of a long addition is not sourced if most of it is not. The problem can be avoided if people learn to actually follow the source, and not just add information which they think is true and add a source at the end to give it a sense of legitimacy even though the source doesn't really say most of what they added. This is particularly the case in rapidly developing articles even more so ones which may be nominated for ITN in the future. {{fact}} tags are really only for information which has been in the article a long time and where it's expected it may be true but is unsourced but it's hoped someone can reference it (most likely someone other then the person who wrote it) rather then cases when the information was just added by someone who failed to source it (people should source things before they add them, not after, if they add things with the expectation they are going to source them sometime in the future, they should in the very least make that clear in their edit, and not be surprised if the information disappears regardless, they can always recover it from the edit history or as I said, far better just not added it in the first place, if necessary to save it on wikipedia for whatever reason, either use a sandbox, use the talk page or even perhaps add it to the article but hide it). In other words, from what I can tell HJ Mitchell doesn't really have to admit anything and acted entirely understandable here Nil Einne (talk) 09:31, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

For the record, it wasn't a tiny bit. I will highlight in bold everything that was sourced in the statement and show that about 75% was sourced, that isn't a tiny bit. The remainder was knowledge that could have easily been mistaken for common knowledge by anyone familar with drilling operations. Lets just put an end to this and move on. Everything is sourced and happy now.Aalox (talk) 11:28, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

If unable to close the blow out preventer (BOP) valves on the well head 5000 feet below the surface of the water using the ROV two other options remain to secure the source. The first and fastest is to place a dome over the well head capturing the oil and piping it to the surface to a storage vessel, this operation will take some time as the dome will have to be fabricated. The next option would be to bring in another drilling rig and either re-drill the well straight down, (as done in Australia), or cross drill from a little ways away and tap into the original borehole. Once the second drilling operation reaches the original borehole the operators could then pump drilling mud into the well to stop the flow of oil.

Source information quoted from [1]:

Efforts to stem the flow are being complicated by the depth of the leak at the underwater well, which is about 5,000ft (1,525m) beneath the surface.

Image with quote "ROV trying to activate Blow out preventer (BOP)

Engineers are working on a dome-like device to cover oil rising to the surface and pump it to container vessels, but it may be weeks before this is in place.

BP is also working on a "relief well" to intersect the original well, but this is experimental and could take two to three months to stop the flow.

Approaches to Stopping the Oil Leak

If unable to close the blow out preventer (BOP) valves on the well head 5000 feet below the surface of the water using the ROV two other options remain to secure the source. The first and fastest is to place a dome over the well head capturing the oil and piping it to the surface to a storage vessel, this operation will take some time as the dome will have to be fabricated. The next option would be to bring in another drilling rig and either re-drill the well straight down, (as done in Australia), or cross drill from a little ways away and tap into the original borehole. Once the second drilling operation reaches the original borehole the operators could then pump drilling mud into the well to stop the flow of oil.

Alternatively, large amounts of concrete that hardens on exposure to sea water could be dropped over the hole, or a shaped charge on the sea floor could be used to cover the hole with debris from the sea floor. Both these methods would most likely permanently disable or destroy the facility and so would only be used as a last resort.

PTTEP Australasia (November 3, 2009). "PTTEP Australasia Timor Sea Operations – Incident Information #87". Press release. Archived from the original on November 5, 2009. http://www.webcitation.org/5l3MMzCW3. Retrieved November 5, 2009.

"West Atlas oil leak stopped". ABC News. November 3, 2009. Archived from the original on November 5, 2009. http://www.webcitation.org/5l3R9hPbY. Retrieved November 5, 2009.

List of oil spills

This list should be made a changeable chart, by date, size of spill, alphabetical order, depending on the viewer's need, but I don't know how to do it, despite Help:Table#Sorting and Help:Sorting. Anyone? --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 02:09, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Confusion

What does "Once the cementing was complete, it was due to be tested for integrity and a cement plug set to abandon the well for later completion as a subsea producer." mean? Stovl (talk) 06:23, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

New Page Title Needed

Why are the words "Oil Spill" not in the title or first few words instead of the end of the first sentence of the story?? That makes no sense at all. The public would be better served and this article could be more readily found by readers if this story was called Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill, which is comparable to the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill, the other oil spill that this new spill is being compared to. Why are we making this page so non-user friendly which such a title?Myk60640 (talk) 14:13, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll second that. It seems clear this incident will go down in history for the oil spill the explosion created, and not the explosion itself.

Over on the merge discussion at Talk:Deepwater_Horizon#Merge_discussion, I put forth the title idea of changing it to Deepwater Horizon blowout and oil spill or Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill. Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill could work too. Just brain stormin' Aalox (talk) 16:29, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill is OK--DAI (Δ) 19:27, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill describes the situation well. //Don K. (talk) 05:47, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Not well enough to be memorable. Most of us had never heard of Deepwater Horizon before this and its not an easy title to remember. The well known characteristics of this event are Gulf of Mexico, BP and 2010. That's what the title should contain. HiLo48 (talk) 06:55, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

When I added the coordinates of the rig, I centered the coordinates to the middle of Mississippi Canyon Block 252 (that was on the day of the explosion or the day after). It's pretty good, but if anyone has gotten more precise coordinates in the last week, please add them. - Gump Stump (talk) 18:41, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Map of Oil Spill

Approximate oil locations from April 25, 2010 to April 30, 2010

[2] is a map of the spill, created by NOAA which should mean it is not copyrighted per being US Government created material. Can anyone convert this to a file type suitable to be uploaded and included? Aalox (talk) 19:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

added govtrust

Requested move

Deepwater Horizon drilling rig explosion → Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill — While this incident began and achieved notability with an explosion, the incident is now recognized as a disaster because of the oil spill it caused, more than the explosion which it began with. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 19:28, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

• Hold I agree with Labattblueboy Govtrust (talk) 19:45, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
• Comment Deepwater Horizon oil spill not Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill. Oil spill is not a proper name.--Labattblueboy (talk) 20:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
• Hold There is a merge discussion involving this page taking place at Talk:Deepwater Horizon#Merge discussion. I support the move but I'd like to see the merge discussion tied up before this is actioned.--Labattblueboy (talk) 20:28, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
• Comment: "BP Oil Spill", not "Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill", would be the common name. It's clear that the merge to "Deepwater Horizon" is not going to happen.--Jiang (talk) 21:05, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
• Please Explain: why is "oil spill" not capitalized? It's part of a proper name, isn't it? After all, it's not a type of oil spill but a specific Oil Spill. Wikkitywack (talk) 21:30, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
• Therefore, I support Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill. Btw, "BP Oil Spill" is much too vague, isn't it? Wikkitywack (talk) 21:30, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
  • no, are there other BP oil spills? Unless we can show the same term being used for separate incidents, it's not too vague.--Jiang (talk) 22:14, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
  • BP is a big oil company. I'm sure this is not their first spill nor is it likely to be their last. In fact, here's another BP oil spill: "Prudhoe Bay oil spill" (which should really be capitalized because it's a proper name). Wikkitywack (talk) 02:57, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
• Support Deepwater Horizon oil spill. It is specifically related to the Deepwater Horizon explosion and BP oil spill is too vague. Per WP:LOWERCASE Deepwater Horizon oil spill is an appropriate title. Beagel (talk) 07:23, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
  • But "Oil Spill" is part of the proper title - you wouldn't just call it "Deepwater Horizon", right? Wikkitywack (talk) 09:45, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
• Hold pending merge discussion. However, I think "explosion" should remain in the title: the explosion was a significant and tragic event. -- Radagast3 (talk) 08:18, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
• support is exactly the first thing i entered the discussion page for. i would even suggest: deepwater horizon environmental catastrophy. becus oil spill is most ambiguous about size and impact, also what radagast says here is outrageous, it might invite oil corps to blow up a few personnel so as not to become identifiable in causing an ecological disaster. perhaps a split would also be betterm the thing sunk after (an 'explosion event' of) two days, we are worrying on for at least 4 now.80.57.43.99 (talk) 10:55, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Split "Oil spill" section of article to BP Gulf of Mexico oil spill

This is an important topic. It will likely become lengthy. People remember names of ships or locations but not rigs. The current titling is inhibiting finding the material in the article. There are far, far more search results for "BP oil spill" or "Gulf of Mexico oil spill" on Google and Yahoo than for any "Deepwater"-related search. BP has had other spills so adding the geographical locator would make it more particular; the Gulf has had other spills, so adding the co. makes sense.

This is a suggested split rather than move -- although I support a move rather than the current title -- because the explosion may retain importance as a separate albeit relatively minor topic. The explosion was on the rig.

The discussion of the merge or move is holding up necessary action. I was tempted just to boldly do the split but out of respect for previous authors on the spill section, am attempting consensus.Popsup (talk) 21:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Would you suggest separate articles for The Grounding of the Exxon Valdez and Exxon Prince William Sound Oil Spill? Aalox (talk) 23:58, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

No. But with the Exxon Valdez, there is one article about the ship, and another about the spill. If I were creating this Deepwater content from scratch I would put the explosion content on the article about the rig, and still have a separate article about the spill. But I'm trying to deal with what we have here already. If there ends up being three articles it's not ideal. But I'm less concerned with the ship/explosion differences than with giving the spill its own page.Popsup (talk) 01:07, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

There already exist an article about the rig at Deepwater Horizon. You are suggesting creating a third article, while others have been suggesting moving two into one. This is becoming quite a mess. I completely agree that the spill is the more major and important part, and as such, the article needs to be able to explain the cause of the spill, the explosion and sinking of the rig. Aalox (talk) 03:55, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

From someone who lives half a world away... I never knew and won't remember the name of the rig. I do know of the Gulf of Mexico, and will remember roughly when this all happened. I also know that BP is involved. Those are the things I need to be able to search on in a title. So "BP Gulf of Mexico oil spill 2010" would be an effective title. HiLo48 (talk) 04:44, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose No need for a split at this time, and having the Deepwater Horizon in the title uniquely identifies this spill. -- Radagast3 (talk) 08:21, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

North Korea torpedoed the oil rig ?

I found an interesting article which implicates North Korea in this matter - it might have torpedoed the oil rig, which was produced by the South Korean company Hyundai Heavy Industries. A North Korean cargo ship - the Dai Hong Dan - was within 200km of the oil rig when the explosions took place and could have launched a small submarine to that effect.

I will paste the article with the link for everyone to read - I guess this constitutes fair use for scientific purposes.

Begin article:

US Orders Blackout Over North Korean Torpedoing Of Gulf Of Mexico Oil Rig

http://www.whatdoesitmean.com/index1367.htm

A grim report circulating in the Kremlin today written by Russia’s Northern Fleet is reporting that the United States has ordered a complete media blackout over North Korea’s torpedoing of the giant Deepwater Horizon oil platform owned by the World’s largest offshore drilling contractor Transocean that was built and financed by South Korea’s Hyundai Heavy Industries Co. Ltd., that has caused great loss of life, untold billions in economic damage to the South Korean economy, and an environmental catastrophe to the United States.

Most important to understand about this latest attack by North Korea against its South Korean enemy is that under the existing “laws of war” it was a permissible action as they remain in a state of war against each other due to South Korea’s refusal to sign the 1953 Armistice ending the Korean War.

To the attack itself, these reports continue, the North Korean “cargo vessel” Dai Hong Dan believed to be staffed by 17th Sniper Corps “suicide” troops left Cuba’s Empresa Terminales Mambisas de La Habana (Port of Havana) on April 18th whereupon it “severely deviated” from its intended course for Venezuela’s Puerto Cabello bringing it to within 209 kilometers (130 miles) of the Deepwater Horizon oil platform which was located 80 kilometers (50 miles) off the coast of the US State of Louisiana where it launched an SSC Sang-o Class Mini Submarine (Yugo class) estimated to have an operational range of 321 kilometers (200 miles).

On the night of April 20th the North Korean Mini Submarine manned by these “suicidal” 17th Sniper Corps soldiers attacked the Deepwater Horizon with what are believed to be 2 incendiary torpedoes causing a massive explosion and resulting in 11 workers on this giant oil rig being killed outright. Barely 48 hours later, on April 22nd , this North Korean Mini Submarine committed its final atrocity by exploding itself directly beneath the Deepwater Horizon causing this $1 Billion oil rig to sink beneath the seas and marking 2010’s celebration of Earth Day with one of the largest environmental catastrophes our World has ever seen.

To the reason for North Korea attacking the Deepwater Horizon, these reports say, was to present US President Obama with an “impossible dilemma” prior to the opening of the United Nations Review Conference of the Parties to the Treat on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) set to begin May 3rd in New York.

This “impossible dilemma” facing Obama is indeed real as the decision he is faced with is either to allow the continuation of this massive oil leak catastrophe to continue for months, or immediately stop it by the only known and proven means possible, the detonation of a thermonuclear device.

Russian Navy atomic experts in these reports state that should Obama choose the “nuclear option” the most viable weapon at his disposal is the United States B83 (Mk-83) strategic thermonuclear bomb having a variable yield (Low Kiloton Range to 1,200 Kilotons) which with its 12 foot length and 18 inch diameter, and weighing just over 2,400 pounds, is readily able to be deployed and detonated by a remote controlled mini-sub.

Should Obama choose the “nuclear option” it appears that he would be supported by the International Court of Justice who on July 8, 1996 issued an advisory opinion on the use of nuclear weapons stating that they could not conclude definitively on these weapons use in “extreme circumstances” or “self defense”.

On the other hand, if Obama chooses the “nuclear option” it would leave the UN’s nuclear conference in shambles with every Nation in the World having oil rigs off their coasts demanding an equal right to atomic weapons to protect their environment from catastrophes too, including Iran.

To whatever decision Obama makes it remains a fact that with each passing hour this environmental catastrophe grows worse. And even though Obama has ordered military SWAT teams to protect other oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico from any further attack, and further ordered that all drilling in the Gulf of Mexico be immediately stopped, this massive oil spill has already reached the shores of America and with high waves and more bad weather forecast the likelihood of it being stopped from destroying thousands of miles of US coastland and wildlife appears unstoppable.

And not just to the environmental catastrophe that is unfolding the only devastation to be wrecked upon the United States and South Korea by this North Korean attack as the economic liabilities associated with this disaster are estimated by these Russian reports to be between $500 Billion to $1.5 Trillion, and which only a declaration of this disaster being an “act of war” would free some the World’s largest corporations from bankruptcy.

Important to note too in all of these events was that this was the second attack by North Korea on its South Korean enemy, and US ally, in a month as we had reported on in our March 28th report titled “Obama Orders ‘Immediate Stand-down’ After Deadly North Korean Attack” and which to date neither the Americans or South Korea have retaliated for and giving one senior North Korean party leader the courage to openly state that the North Korean military took “gratifying revenge” on South Korea.

And for those believing that things couldn’t get worse, they couldn’t be more mistaken as new reports coming from Japanese military sources are stating that North Korea is preparing for new launches of its 1,300 kilometer (807 miles) intermediate range ballistic “Rodong” missile which Russian Space Forces experts state is able to “deploy and detonate” an atomic electromagnetic pulse (EMP) device, and which if detonated high in the atmosphere could effectively destroy the American economy for years, if not decades, to come.

http://www.whatdoesitmean.com/index1367.htm

End article.

-- Alexey Topol (talk) 00:17, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

The same article appeared here, in the EU Times. However it's possible that this is some kind of joke or hoax, or false information. But you never know. ~AH1^(TCU) 00:34, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

When a real news source reports this, we can reconsider. Right now, no. Grsz¹¹ 02:08, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Paranoidal fantasies have no place in Wikipedia (well, not as sources ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 04:31, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Link to BP wiki page

Why is there no link to the BP wiki page? Even the first mentions are unhighlighted.

"Gallon" Units 'US' or 'Imperial'

Are the gallon quantities in the article US gallons? There are now only 3 'litres' mentioned (litres/second) in the Dealing with the spill section. I intend putting some Gallon to Litre conversions into the article (as per Manual of Style-Units of measurement). I am assuming that they are US Gallons, not Imperial Gallons. Please say if I am mistaken. Thanks! --220.101.28.25 (talk) 04:10, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Organization of "Oil Spill" section

I undid the combination of sections made by TheFlyer at 03:06, 1 May 2010 for numerous reasons.

(1) The stated reason for the combining, "chronology management," was not accomplished by the deletion of a separate section on the volume and extent on the spill, because it zigzagged from April 30 back to the beginning of the cleanup efforts.

(2) The facts on the spill volume/extent are not part of the "cleanup efforts" so the combination of sections defeats the purpose of outline form. The chronology is less important than being able to find the information on a specified aspect of the spill; someone looking to find out how much oil was spilling, and how the estimates changed, would not naturally look in a "cleanup" section; description of the problem is separate, and should come before, narrative on solutions

(3) The volume and extent of the spill will likely continue to grow as an independent subsection

(4) "Cleanup efforts" will also likely continue to grow as an independent subsection

Popsup (talk) 09:36, 1 May 2010 (UTC)