Talk:Deepwater Horizon

First article

My first article. Orniphobe 02:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Good job.--Supertouch (talk) 16:57, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Merge discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was no consensus to merge Deepwater Horizon drilling rig explosion into Deepwater Horizon.--Labattblueboy (talk) 15:40, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

---

• Support reduce confusion, if you're searching for deepwater horizon you are most likely looking for the latest information on the status of the vessel and investigation in to the accident. The current article is lacking in information anyway so it makes sense to merge the two articles.

• Support Seeing that the main article was little more than stub prior to the addition of material regarding the explosion, it seems unnecessary to have a separate page for the explosion.--Supertouch (talk) 23:08, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. THe article about Deepwater Horizon is not a stub anymore and it deserves its own article notwithstanding the explosion. Beagel (talk) 04:01, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

  Comment. Deepwater Horizon has drilled the world's deepest oil and gas well at 35,050 feet total vertical depth, so it is definitely notable oil rig.Beagel (talk) 04:32, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

• That's not a reason to prefer a merge. Instead, we look to other concerns like size, relevance to the article, and the relation of the two topics. Ask yourself this question. Wouldn't someone looking at the rig article be interested in the accident, and vis versa? That question, plus the practical concerns, including the increase in difficulty, consistency, and management, and you'll realize why we commonly use size as the split proxy. In this case, that's not an issue. Shadowjams (talk) 07:14, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose I agree with Beagel. Deepwater Horizon does deserve a separate article. The article about explosion is likely to get bigger as the news develop. Thanks. Tuscumbia (talk) 12:45, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support I concur with the original proposal, there seems to be only limited content on this page except for that about the explosion. FienX (talk) 18:07, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

  Actually there is a number of reliable sources about the rig publsihed before the accident. And as it drilled the deepest oil well ever and was one of the largest semi-submersible oil rigs, it is notable notwithstanding the accident. Beagel (talk) 20:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support Most material is duplicated across the two pages. Geoboffin (talk) 19:50, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

  Removed most of duplication. Beagel (talk) 20:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

  Even with the removal of duplicated material I see no need for two separate articles. The lede of WP:SPLIT suggests (i.e., does not list specific reasons for splitting a page, but I think two can reasons can be inferred) that the two most common reasons for splitting a page are page size and on section of an article becoming disproportional to the rest. The first reason does not apply here as each article has approximately 8.5 KG, while the guideline at WP:SPLIT says that the splitting articles of less than 30 KG is not justified by length alone. (Check my "calculations" using either User:Dr pda/prosesize.js or [1].) This leaves us with the second reason. In my opinion, combining the two pages would produce a page with about one half describing the rig itself and its history and the other half (or probably a little more) describing the explosion.--Supertouch (talk) 21:47, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

• Wait and see - if the explosion article doesn't increase substantially more by the time the story is out of the news it can be merged. However, if it does increase much more it would be undue weight to merge it in based on the current length of coverage of the rest of the rig's history. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:12, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

For the time being I agree we should wait until this incident is cycled out of the news before making a final decision, I think WP:UNDUE would actually support a merge not oppose it. The significance of the explosion and subsequent sinking of the rig is very significant to the article on the rig therefore justifying a major chunk of the (merged) article dealing with that.--Supertouch (talk) 22:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Deepwater Horizon has notable events prior to this one. If you merge it now you will just have to split it later. In general when events like this occur, "wait and see" should be the approach taken before merging. Trying to determine whether to merge an article of a current event while that event is still occurring just doesn't make sense!! Argel1200 (talk) 00:16, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose They're two separate items, while related, really shouldn't be merged. (Something tells me the 'Explosion' page will grow substantially.)--The Navigators (talk)-May British Rail Rest in Peace. 01:48, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose I agree that they are two separate topics, and thus two separate articles. There is a lot of information in the 'Explosion' article that isn't in this one, and if they were merged, it would probably need to be split again later. —ems24 02:24, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support As per original. Clutters Wiki —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.214.219.11 (talk) 03:11, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose, especially if the 11 missing are confirmed/presumed dead. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 04:22, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support - Clutter is a concern, but so is relevance. The original article is not large, and there's no compelling reason why the two should be separate. Shadowjams (talk) 07:12, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support The article should be merged. The original article is small and thus, would become more relevant according to Wikipedia standards. Avs_Dps (talk) 11:32, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose, as per Beagel. Gerry (talk) 12:33, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose both act as stand alones, the disaster article is likley to grow significantly especially with onging investigations occuring and is an event notable on its own. Ottawa4ever (talk) 13:34, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support Its was the approach used for Ocean Ranger. --Labattblueboy (talk) 14:39, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose to counter the Ocean ranger example above---we have an article on Exxon Valdez and Exxon Valdez oil spill.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 16:32, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose As per Argel1200. EaswarH (talk) 18:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support. There is no reason why this can't be contained in the parent article. Resolute 19:34, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support merge. They are not separate topics. Would we consider the construction, operation, or any other event to be a separate article? Obviously not. So why having the explosion as a separate article? In some cases this is done because the main article gets to big but here is not enough info to warrant splitting the info.-- P 1 9 9 • TALK 19:55, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose for now If the explosion's page gets too big we will have to split it anyway. I propose we wait before coming to a conclusion on this one. Acebulf (talk) 20:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support. It is not is the custom of Wikipedia to create separate articles on maritime disasters. For example, the sinking of the RMS Titanic was a serious, notable event in world history, but it does not currently constitute a separate article; it is part of the article on the ship.Bigturtle (talk) 21:16, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Neither of the two articles have significantly differing information except that one concentrates on the incident and the other on the drilling rig itself. Even if the available information on the Deepwater Horizon disaster becomes substantial, it will not in and of itself justify two separate pages because the page outlining the Deepwater Horizon is not very comprehensive. In addition, BigTurtle's argument above makes perfect sense in that the Titanic is a much larger disaster in terms of potential historical impact, yet there is no separate page for the ship itself. Flybywire_e2c 23:51, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support as it wasn't a major event, and the oil rig's article needs expanding anyway so this would be useful to add. Ggoere (talk) 12:12, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support because there is repetition in both articles and they would both be better served by combining them. If the oil leakage becomes a major disaster, then that disaster would warrant its own article. Diiscool (talk) 13:53, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. The article should simply mention the fate of the rig and not go into root cause analysis of the explosion. It might be an idea to create an article on offshore oil & gas incidents wherein the details of the explosion can be explored, developed and linked to the article about the rig Jonesinperth (talk) 02:28, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. If and when, in the fullness of time, the facts show the circumstances surrounding the end of the rig known as the Deepwater Horizon do not warrant a separate article, then (and only then) merge this article in with the primary article. In the meantime, keep the articles separate. //Don K. (talk) 06:55, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. As a number of people have stated, let's wait until this cycles through. Two weeks should be enough time to see what develops. The way this is playing out, a merge might be the way to go since this isn't a "major" spill. Two weeks isn't a long time, I'd imagine. --Hourick (talk) 09:56, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Easily notable both as split articles. Ingolfson (talk) 05:13, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

• Question Are all oil platorms inherently notable, like locations and popes? ^walk victor falk ^talk 15:10, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose This is a major event, which deserves an article on its own. Serketan 15:51, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose because of oil spill and deaths --DAI (Δ) 19:36, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Support but explosion is more notable than the platf. --DAI (Δ) 19:38, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. This incident is certainly notable in its own right and many disasters have their own article. Also, with an oil slick the size of Jamaica, it's attracting ongoing attention. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:48, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Just like many other articles, specific events (calamities/disasters, inaugurations, historic moments) that happen at specific structures have their own articles if they are historically important. This explosion/leak undoubtedly has become that, and will only become more important as the clean-up and effects of the spill become apparent. In fact, this article is just the place to expand on the future clean up, cleaning technologies, ecosystems, political impacts, etc- and not in the article concerning the structure itself. gloushire 16:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support moving Deepwater Horizon drilling rig explosion to History of the Deepwater Horizon. Marcus Aurelius Antoninus (talk) 02:16, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose People reading about the disaster should not be sent to the bottom of the page and/or distracted by all the technical specs of the rig. People reading about the rig should not be distracted by the minute details of the disaster timeline. Of course, those interested in both can always follow the link. Xenonice (talk) 04:46, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Platform was notable enough to have an article before this event (since August 8 2007). The event has been In the news on the main page twice (Once for Explosion, Once for Spill). I would like to put forth the idea of moving it to Deepwater Horizon blowout and oil spill or Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill. Aalox (talk) 05:31, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Event is to important at the moment to be merged. Maybe merge in half a year or so. Amada44 (talk) 11:07, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support Absolutely no need yet for separate articles. Reywas92^Talk 12:07, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose as per Tuscumbia Cody⁵⁷⁴ 14:07, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose The Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill deserves its own page and that title. Why are we making this so non-user friendly by not putting the word "Oil Spill" in that page title. The Exxon Valdez incident is called the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Who the heck cares about the drilling rig itself, or, will one year from now. It's the oil spill that is the news. Have you heard of the KISS theory? Keep it simple stupid! Myk60640 (talk) 14:20, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Both are notable enough for their own article. ^TheGRAND_Rans ✫Speak to Me!✫ 14:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose The detail about the explosion and spill is to extensive to be included in the article about the rig 74.220.188.108 (talk) 15:15, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose I agree with Myk60640 that The Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill is the story, not the rig, or for that matter, even the explosion. Popsup (talk) 17:38, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose the merge: we should have an article about the Deepwater Horizon oil platform (much as we have articles about the Exxon Valdez and Cosco Busan) and a separate article about the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill. The vessel involved in the incident achieves notoriety and notability via the incident. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 19:24, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose for various reasons already mentioned. At any rate, I believe the White House is calling this the BP oil spill, which may signify an official name designation for the disaster. Wrightchr (talk) 19:58, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose merge. Oil rig is/was independently notable beyond the spill for its accomplishment in 2009. The oil spill topic is an incident that originated at the rig, but has moved far beyond that, both literally and figuratively. 23skidoo (talk) 20:06, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose merge. The rig was a thing with its own history (the deepest well is pretty interesting), the explosion and spill is an event. The rig's entry has also existed for a couple of years, long before it was famous because of this event. Merging would cause the details of the event to dominate the details of the thing. UltraNurd (talk) 21:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose I agree that the rig is independtly notable. The oil spill is extremely notable and should be a seperate subject. For example the Great Chicago Fire is a seperate article from Chicago. Dincher (talk) 21:27, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Both articles are notable, and trying to add this in to the rig article will only add clutter. --Falcorian ^(talk) 23:18, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Because like others have posted, it is the spill and everything connected to it- the rig of course, the BOP failure, the formation, ongoing activities, and all contractor companies.

• Oppose If I am to use a precedent, it seems that there are separate articles for LZ 129 Hindenburg and the Hindenburg disaster. This is quite similar in some respect. --Ambrosiaster (talk) 02:14, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Let the separate article be the ever-changing lightening rod for recentism. Then as we get distance from the news story we can look at an eventual merge. --Kevin Murray (talk) 05:03, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose per the same reason I had or another current event article which much of the above was mentioned there not to mention the edit conflict potential. Sawblade5 ^{(talk to me | my wiki life)} 05:08, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose The event is notable on its own, and should have its own article. Merging it with this article would mean the combined article would be rather large, and also most of it would be about the explosion anyway. Dream Focus 07:27, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose The event is notable on its own, and over time the two articles will diverge even more, with this article including consequences of various kinds, and the other article covering the impact of the present location of the wrecked platform. -- Radagast3 (talk) 08:15, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. The event is highly notable and deserves a separate article. Nsk92 (talk) 11:25, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. I agree with Nsk92.--Александр Мотин (talk) 13:14, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Latitude, Longitude

Any geo co-ordinates available to map this?
--Atikokan (talk) 02:21, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

There are coordinates on the page about the explosion (here). - Gump Stump (talk) 15:52, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

of which. (Left something out?)

of which WHAT? On September 2, 2009, Deepwater Horizon drilled on the Tiber oilfield the deepest oil well ever drilled with a total depth of 35,055 feet (10,685 m), of which 4,132 feet (1,259 m). Sentences without endings don't make much sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.232.94.33 (talk) 21:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Of water. Sentence fixed. Beagel (talk) 21:32, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Sections

Explosion is a final part of the rig's history and therefore I think it suits better as a subsection of the history section. Beagel (talk) 21:31, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

But some of the description of the rig is necessary to understand the explosion section, for example, the process the rig was engaged in at the time of the explosion.--Supertouch (talk) 21:49, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Datums

"...deepest oil well ever drilled with a total depth of 35,055 feet (10,685 m), of which 4,132 feet (1,259 m) was water"

This is meaningless unless you state Measured Depth (MD) or True Vertical Depth (TVD). I imagine it's TVD, as there are plenty of wells with greater MDs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.12.23.225 (talk) 14:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Both, MD and TVD are added. Could you please give example of oil well with deeper TVD? Beagel (talk) 08:02, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Someone needs to tweak the metre-feet conversions: MD is shown as 5m and also 5ft greater than TVD. Also, the rig description section cites a max drilling depth of 30 000ft; perhaps a parenthesised "deeper than its design capacity" or similar is in order to avoid confusion? Geoboffin (talk) 20:31, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps someone who understands the automatic conversions can address the fact that of the three depth numbers converted, two are accurate and one converts incorrectly--off by 3 meters. Instead of 10,680 meters, it should convert to 10,683 meters. At first I thought it rounds to the nearest 5, but then saw that the third conversion ends in a 9. What goes? Unclepea (talk) 15:02, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

She or it?

As a ship, Deepwater Horizon should be referred as 'she'. As a rig, 'it' seems to be more correct. What is the correct form to use? Beagel (talk) 08:10, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Deepwater Horizon was self-propelled Mobile Offshore Drilling Unit. She was manned and operated just like a drillship (Captain, officers, crew, etc). She has to meet all the same rules of a merchant ship (MARPOL, ISM, ISPS, Loadline, COLREGs, etc.) The term "rig" is layman for many things including MODU's, stationary production platforms, even FPSO's. Orniphobe (talk) 05:32, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

As I understand it, Deepwater Horizon was not really a ship any most senses of the word. It had propulsion, but it only used that to stay still relative to the seafloor. For actual transportation, it was carried on the back of a heavy lift ship. 74.96.198.225 (talk) 00:39, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but Deepwater Horizon was registered as a ship, had a port of registry and carried flag of the registry country (Marshal Islands). Beagel (talk) 10:48, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

No, she was not carried on a heavy lift ship. She sailed under own power from Korea to the Gulf of Mexico in 2001. She would transit between wells and do storm evasion on her own. Orniphobe (talk) 09:51, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

PLEASE get rid of the SHE nonsense. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia article, not an old sea tale. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.83.98.235 (talk) 17:02, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Seconded, the she stuff is ridiculous.Tjm402 (talk) 17:23, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Deepwater Horizon was much more of a rig than a ship, we should not let legal technicalities override common sense. Diderot's dreams (talk) 17:36, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I think we're supposed to follow the sources. Has a semi-submersible ever been called "she" outside of Wikipedia? I would be surprised. - Dank (push to talk) 22:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Encyclopedic material should follow standard grammar rules. Referring to a ship with female pronouns is just a tradition. I think "it" would be better. Ahmediq152 (talk) 19:47, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I vote for "it" no matter whether Deepwater Horizon was a rig, a ship or a cupcake. This is encyclopedia for crying out loud. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.161.241.8 (talk) 14:58, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

From WikiProject Ships Guidelines "Ships may be referred to either using female pronouns ("she", "her") or genderless pronouns ("it", "its"). Either usage is acceptable, but each article should be internally consistent and employ one or the other exclusively. As with all optional styles, articles should not be changed from one style to another unless there is a substantial reason to do so." I've looked at all the semi-submersible articles and there's a mix. All other types of ships use "she" and "her". I only see two instances of "it" now which I think is insulting to the crew whose lives were saved because of her design and upkeep. I will change them to "the rig" or "the vessel." Orniphobe (talk) 09:51, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Photo

The proper lead photo seems to be the one of the rig prior to the explosion. The fire photo is more pertinent to the separate article about the explosion and disaster. We don't show Kennedy's corpse as the JFK article's lead nor do we show the wreckage of the Titanic as the lead for the ship's article. --Kevin Murray (talk) 05:11, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree Kevin, and I'm the one who placed the original photo after crop. The same photo is used in the other article. Stubbleboy (talk) 02:11, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

This image is a press agency photo and cannot be used per WP:NFCC2, because the agency took this photo to commercialize its use. Calliopejen1 (talk) 12:13, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree with K Murray and Stubbleboy. We should definitely try to find a photo of the rig prior to the explosion and fire -- not as a single photo article, but to add in addition to the flaming platform photo. I have added a {{reqphoto}} tag. N2e (talk) 21:39, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Sources

I am not sure if Billy-Bob politician from some parish in Louisiana would be considered a credible source for technical drilling rig matters --187.132.75.133 (talk) 06:29, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I just changed the crew complement from 130 to what it really was, 144. This incident has taught me some of the major news providers are horrible fact checkers. Orniphobe (talk) 11:04, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I just deleted a few inaccurate sentences. She was capable of drilling in 10,000 and had drilled a well in about 9800' earlier in her career. She had no anchors, just DP with six generators and eight thrusters. She had beds and lifeboat space for 146, not 130, and not 144 that I mentioned earlier. The infobox was right. Orniphobe (talk) 13:38, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

New info

Actually all of this is a cover up by Obama since he demanded that the press stay silent on the cause of the topic. Actually North korean soldiers took a ship from North korea's navy base called the "Port Havana" in Cuba.Then it deviated and launched a mini sub of which shot 2 incendary torpedos on April 20. Then 2 days later it and it's suicide crew exploded the sub directly below the rig in attempt do destroy it.The reason is that it's owned by South Korean Hyundai which they've been at war with since 1953. And here's the site http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/how-did-the-oil-rig-explode-in-the-first-place-that-is-the-question/blog-313401/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by U.T. ROCKS (talk • contribs) 01:44, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Haha! That's fantastic. But seriously, that sounds like such a classic conspiracy theory and thus you're gonna have to show us a much more reliable source than that one link.

--Qwerty0 (talk) 16:09, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Marshall Islands??

Wait, does anyone know why it was registered in the Marshall Islands? I know, it's probably tax or legal loophole reasons, but what are the loopholes? What's the motive? Is that a common practice? (Look at the port of registry, Majuro. It's in the Marshall Islands.)

--Qwerty0 (talk) 16:03, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is usual practice with commercial and service vessels to use flag of convenience. Beagel (talk) 10:50, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Was/Is

The Deepwater Horizon is owned by Transocean, even though it may be a wreck at the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico, at least until such time that the insurance underwriter, if any, pays Transocean for the loss. That's the law. Unless someone can come up with a citation that the payment has already been made, it should be kept in the present tense. I've changed it here and at Deepwater Horizon oil spill a couple of times already, and some editors keep reverting it. —Quicksilver^{T @} 16:12, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Dynamic positioning

This article describes the Deepwater Horizon as being dynamically positioned. The Wiki page for Dynamic Positioning gives a good explaination of what this means. However, further down in this article, the following was written

"She had pontoons and a column that submerge when they are ballasted with sea water, lowering the rig. Chains and heavy anchors kept the rig in place.[13] with the reference being a newspaper. Using the Wiki definition of dynamic positioning, the use of chains and heavy anchors does not match up. A rig that uses anchors is not using dynamic positioning.

Perhaps a better reference than USA Today could be found to determine whether the Deepwater Horizon used anchors and chains (not well suitable in deep water) or used dynamic positioning (which is more likely). Throckmorton Guildersleeve (talk) 16:53, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

The source actually says "moored with anchor chains and computer controlled propellers." I misinterpreted the source when I rewrote that bit. My bad. I'm not sure if the source is wrong about DH using anchor chains, but I'll make it read per the source. Diderot's dreams (talk) 03:51, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

She had no anchors and no chain. I just deleted a couple of inaccurate sentences. Please see my post above on sources. Orniphobe (talk) 13:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Think about it: It may have used chains and anchors in shallow water, but in water over a mile deep — no way. The weight of multiple anchor chains over a mile long would have been enough to sink the rig and would not have provided the positioning stability needed for the task of dropping a drill string a mile through water and then drilling another six or seven miles below the seabed. GPS and servoed thrusters are the only way something like that could work.—Quicksilver^{T @} 22:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

That makes sense. I have found a source for the lack of anchors-- Transocean's fleet description. I am surprised this source has not been used in the article as it is easily found. That's the best way if you know a source is inaccurate and need to show it-- with another source. Unfortunately, it can be hard to take the word of editors with real world knowledge in the face of a reliable source. We don't have proof of folks credentials here, some points are put forward for monetary or emotional reasons, and some of us who must judge have limited real world knowledge of the topic. Diderot's dreams (talk) 18:14, 12 May 2010 (UTC)