Talk:Deepwater Horizon oil spill

Template:Energy portal news
Template:Add

New page title needed (Should Have The Word "Disaster" in It) (Some BP PR Person Likely Cooked up the "Horizons" Title to Bury the Article

Article was moved from Deepwater Horizon drilling rig explosion to Deepwater Horizon oil spill. If you would like to propose moving it again, please start a new section. - Aalox (Say Hello • My Work) 20:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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) I bet no one heard of the Exxon Valdez before the spill either. Aalox (talk) 00:00, 2 May 2010 (UTC) I propose that we change the main title to BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill. The name of the company should be included in the title, as it was for the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill. This title would contain all the necessary information and it is both more precise and more consistent (when compared to the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill title). I also don't think that it is neutral to exclude the name of the company that caused the spill and instead solely refer to the name of the oil platform. --Emptytalk (talk) 00:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC) Oppose "Exxon Valdez" was the name of the ship. "Deepwater Horizon" is the name of the rig. The titles are already congruent as they both follow the format "(Name of vessel) oil spill". It is true that "Exxon Valdez" was the name of the ship, but "Exxon" is also the name of the company. The title of the oil spill thus included the name of the company in the case of the "Exxon Valdez" oil spill. If the tanker in the Exxon oil spill had not included the company as part of its name, the oil spill might have been called differently. Because the tanker was called "Exxon Valdez" it provided a convenient way to include both the responsible corporate entity and the actual vessel at once . It would therefore be congruent to call it the "BP Deepwater Horizon" spill now. --Emptytalk (talk) 00:41, 10 May 2010 (UTC) (The title Should Have The Word "Disaster" in It) Nobody, and I mean nobody is going to do a search for the "Horizon oil spill". I was unsure how to find this article at all. I don't think we should name it this, but the only way I could find it on Google was to search: 2010 gulf oil spill wikipedia Peaceoutside (talk) 21:29, 11 May 2010 (UTC) You can be almost 100% certain that some creepy BP Public Relations person cooked up that title to bury the article. 75.166.179.110 (talk) 16:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC) 75.166.179.110 (talk) 16:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC) Oppose the renaming. This is nonsense. None of the largest oil spills have the word "disaster" in their article titles, and they're all much bigger than this one. An edit comment speculated that BP has its PR minions trying to downplay the incident. That could go both ways. We could just as easily imagine that OPEC, or radical environmentalists, or the leftist supporters of Hugo Chavez and Venezuala's oil interests, are trying to up-play the incident in order to limit oil exploration to non-U.S. sources. -- Randy2063 (talk) 16:39, 10 May 2010 (UTC) There's already a redirect page for BP Oil Spill. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC) The only way I found the article was by googling the words "gulf of mexico oil rig disaster" and looking for the wikipedia url in the search results, which was the third listing and I think thats pretty good. I vote that a name change is opposed for the meantime, at least until the "continuing uncapped oil disaster" is capped, also I suggest the article requires further detail and I will attempt to add a new section in the discussions page relating to this. -- Eco impact 10:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Rename it NOW please

Article was moved from Deepwater Horizon drilling rig explosion to Deepwater Horizon oil spill. If you would like to propose moving it again, please start a new section. - Aalox (Say Hello • My Work) 20:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
FFS what is with all these pages and pages of debate and not one person actually renaming this article to something relevant? It's just sad now. No matter how you google any combinations of Gulf of Mexico Oil spill, BP oil spill, 2010 oil spill or whatever relevant term you will NEVER find this article. The only reason I found it was through a redirect via the oil spill page. How pathetic is that? Stop the useless debating and garbage bureaucracy and change the title to something relevant NOW so people can ACTUALLY FIND THIS ARTICLE. Wikipedia is turning into the federal government ver fast...128.12.101.57 (talk) 18:43, 2 May 2010 (UTC) Absolutely agreed. Get it renamed to "Deepwater Horizon oil spill" so that this Wikipedia article might actually be found in organic search for most likely search term. As for Wikipedia naming style, note that of some 13 named oil spills, 12 articles are named in style: "Name oil spill" -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Oil_spills_in_the_United_States Let's get it done already! --Paulscrawl (talk) 19:11, 2 May 2010 (UTC) As I explain in my last comments in the "rename and move" discussion above, "Deepwater Horizon" is not the most likely search term. But "oil spill" is very important. I think the explosion and fire belong with the article on the rig, and that the spill should be split off, and then the remainder merged, ultimately leaving two articles. The reason I have not done the first part is because that is a major move and I wanted to hear from the article's main early contributors as well as others' opinions about the name of the new article. In the meantime I have set up re-directs from "BP oil spill" to this article.Popsup (talk) 20:56, 2 May 2010 (UTC) I support TWO articles: one, on the rig itself and its demise, whatever it be named in the popular mind, not unlike the biography of the Titanic, and another, separate, article on the oil spill itself, as the latter is surely of far greater long-term interest and great consequence. Branding each article with BP would quickly obsolete both articles, as BP's leaks are surely not yet complete --- the name of the rig is unique and perfectly adequate for these separate rhetorical needs.. --Paulscrawl (talk) 05:36, 3 May 2010 (UTC) Agree with Paul Scrawl--excellent idea. 98.82.23.93 (talk) 20:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC) Wikipedia has "redirects". You type in whatever name you thought to look it up under, and when it comes up as no article found, you say "start a new article" and put in "#REDIRECT Deepwater Horizon drilling rig explosion" (minus the quotes) as the only text. Maybe the article should be divided, renamed, etc., but if it goes by the usual schedule the relief well will be finished before that argument is over... Wnt (talk) 21:03, 2 May 2010 (UTC) Thanks, I'm aware of the basic Wikipedia redirect mechanics, but thought Google search engine mechanics far likely more robust. Why not simply name things what people are looking for? As of May 2, 2010: 1,520,000 for "Deepwater Horizon oil spill" vs. 261,000 for "Deepwater Horizon drilling rig explosion"? Granted, 11,100,000 for "BP oil spill", but that is hardly unique, alas. --Paulscrawl (talk) 05:57, 3 May 2010 (UTC) I urge to keep the name of the company -- BP -- in the headline / title since it is the only most logical way public at large is able to recognize article. I also suspect that BP and other companies involved will try to alter the article by multiple writes/redaction or legal action. Additionally, please create a table for number of parties other than BP (e.g Transocean, Haliburton) involved. This would set a standard of expectation on corporate responsibility. Is the list of survivors and dead known? Who else were allowed to visit the rig/platform in past six weeks to rule out possible sabotage.--Nymontin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.236.46.146 (talk) 15:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC) Whatever it should be renamed--on which I take no position at present--it should not be renamed "BP ..." anything as that would clearly reflect a non-neutral point of view. At the least, one would have to say the operator/leassee/etc. of the rig is contested, as is made clear by at least this one claim in a reliable source. Of course, Wikipedia cannot determine "truth" -- but at this time it is as valid to say that this is a Transocean disaster as it is a BP disaster. Here is the relevant quotation from the UK Telegraph news story: BP says "This was not our accident. This was not our drilling rig. This was not our equipment. It was not our people, our systems or our processes. This was Transocean's rig. Their systems. Their people. Their equipment" N2e (talk) 17:49, 6 May 2010 (UTC) It would be neutral to call it a BP oil spill because that is the wide consensus of sources. Transocean was a contractor for BP, but anyone tempted to sink their own well into the Macondo Prospect would surely receive strenuous notification that it is BP's oil. When it washes up in the marsh it's still BP's oil. BP oil, BP oil spill, no? Wnt (talk) 19:47, 6 May 2010 (UTC) I agree with Wnt that it is more neutral to call it a BP oil spill due to both the current consensus, as well as due to the fact that it is BP that is trying to clean up the oil and that it is BP that has publicly and explicitly accepted responsibility for the spill and for the resulting damages and costs (see for instance this article in which the BP CEO is quoted saying "it's our responsibility" (see also, for instance, this report). If consensus turns at a later point it could still be renamed. At the moment, however, I do not think that it would be neutral to leave out BP's name from the title. --Emptytalk (talk) 00:27, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Clarify blowout preventer

Pre-spill precautions talks of the lack of a blowout preventer switch, but Activities to stop the oil leak describes just such a preventer. I added a {{clarify}} tag. Is there something missing here? Maybe there are different kinds of preventer, and if so, could someone expand on the differences? -84user (talk) 14:23, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

The blowout preventer (BOP) is a standard piece of equipment located at the wellhead on the ocean floor. It's purpose is to seal the well in case of a blowout. It is typically activated by a switch from the rig. (This is in addition to a "deadman switch" that automatically shears the drill pipe and seals the well when communication is lost with the rig.) An acoustic device is a backup device operated from off the rig - for instance from a lifeboat - that could activate the BOP by means of sonar waves. It is explained in both the WSJ and NYT articles linked at that paragraph. --EECEE (talk) 15:23, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation, it is clearer now. I did not follow the citations because they were at the end of the paragraph. I have reworded and hopefully improved the positioning of the citations. I just watched Eric Pooley discuss this very subject at Bloomberg's YouTube channel here, from 1 minute 48 seconds to 2 minutes 20 seconds. -84user (talk) 16:59, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

The Blowout preventer section describes the basis of the two different types of BOP closures. A deepwater BOP stack will be composed of multiple rams (4 to 6), and one or two annular rams. Deepwater DP rigs will normally have two sets of shear rams for redundancy and to provide two barriers in the event of unplanned loss of vessel position. The BOP unit will have two completely seperate control systems (control pods) (I think this is a mandatory requirement), and a set of hydraulic accumulators to provide local power for a given number of operations/functions of the rams, valves and riser connector. Not all subsea drilling BOPs have a deadmans system. This was popular with a few drilling companies in the 1970-80's, when DP drilling vessel arrived. These systems would automaitcally close the BOP and disconnect the riser in the event of control/power failure. This type of automatic system is not popular with drilling companies as there is the risk of unintentional activation which can lead to many other issues with accessing the well and dropping junk in the well. The final backup system for a subsea BOP is access by ROV which can provide both hydraulic power and manually control the functions. It seems that even this has not been possible with the Deepwater Horizon BOP, so that suggests that there is some level of junk across the BOP rams preventing closure, or that the hydraulic systems have failed unexpectedly (very rare given the levels of redundancy). (andyminicooper (talk) 10:06, 15 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 @} 16:36, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. International Maritime Law, and the sources cited, clearly reflect the wreck of the rig is still owned by Transocean. N2e (talk) 18:00, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

• Deepwater Horizon is no longer a rig, its a wreck. If you want to include that Transocean still owns the wreck and have a source to do so, fill your boots. Personal interpretation (original research) of maritime law is however unwanted.--Labattblueboy (talk) 19:58, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Have another beer, Labattblueboy, and go take a long walk off of a short pier.—Quicksilver^{T @} 14:32, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

No. Transocean owned and owns it until a reliable source tells us otherwise. Kittybrewster ☎ 20:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

There needs to be a source that says something one way or the other to merit a change and frankly I haven't seen a media piece that addresses the issue regarding ownership. I entirely agree that Transocean likely still owns the wreck. However, that element of text, at current, has nothing to do with the issue or ownership but rather that the Deepwater Horizon is no longer a rig and is now a wreck. Past tense is appropriate under such conditions.--Labattblueboy (talk) 02:16, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Here is a source that says it was Transocean event: Gulf of Mexico oil spill: Transocean on the block over rig safety record in a reliable source, The Daily Telegraph (UK). Of course, Wikipedia cannot determine "truth" -- but at this time it is as valid to say that this is a Transocean disaster as it is a BP disaster. Here is the relevant quotation from the UK Telegraph news story: BP says "This was not our accident. This was not our drilling rig. This was not our equipment. It was not our people, our systems or our processes. This was Transocean's rig. Their systems. Their people. Their equipment" N2e (talk) 21:03, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

BP CEO Tony Hayward can blame Transocean if he wants and surely it's going to cost that company a lot of money too. However, in this video statement he acknowledges that it's BP's problem. The oil company obtains permission from the US government to be there, and is fully responsible if anything goes wrong. Here is the plan they filed with the Minerals Management Service. "Under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, BP has responsibility to pay for clean up of the spill ...". This BP release refers to the "the cost to the MC252 owners". That includes BP and its minority partners, Anadarko and Mitsui. I think that makes this a BP spill. Marzolian (talk) 01:43, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Blowout or Suspicious?

It is inappropriate to delete "blowout" as the cause of the spill. However, if a proper source can be located, it might be appropriate to characterize the blowout as suspicious. --N419BH (talk) 21:25, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

it was in several (us)papers, among other things that a safety instrument was replaced by a testing one. if i stumble into it again i get back on it. one (us)paper even stated that it was explicitly found as a cause. some days ago though..i second suspicious for the case you make.80.57.43.99 (talk) 20:01, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

APPEAL TO ADMINS & JOURNALISTS

Please investigate whether parties involved in changing the title of this article to an obscure name are being paid by BP or it's subcontractors to manipulate this article.

Sean7phil (talk) 17:29, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

The only connection I have to BP is that I occasionally put their gas in my car (though not lately, since their price jumped). You are way overreacting. The redirects still exist. Anyone who starts their search with "BP" will find it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:55, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, fair enough-- But you are just one person here-- A number of people were involved in turning the article title into an obscure, hard-to-search title, free of any association with B.P. or it's subcontractor, Transocean. It's still very suspicious that the article title would be spun like that. I'd like to know if anyone involved with that is on the BP payroll.

Sean7phil (talk) 18:16, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

No one who searches under "Gulf Oil Disaster" will find it (directly) anymore. The article has been conveniently finessed out of direct searches.

Perhaps the reason for this article not appearing in searches isn't a Wikipedi problem. Perhaps BP has influenced the major search engines. Perhaps Google has been corrupted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.129.23.146 (talk) 00:46, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Sean7phil (talk) 18:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

That's true as the Gulf Oil Disaster may also mean the Gulf War oil spill. Probably needs some disambiguation pages for the Gulf. Beagel (talk) 18:47, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with that one. Feel free to create the disambiguation page. --N419BH (talk) 18:56, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

A disambig page might be worthwhile. That kind of search could easily mean the Gulf War oil spill or the Ixtoc I oil spill (which was also in the Gulf of Mexico). There are also others that happened in the Persian Gulf or Gulf of Oman.

I'll grant that this one is more important, but that's only because it's happening in or near U.S. waters, and Americans are more likely to care about it. But Wikipedia isn't supposed to be America-centric.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 18:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Sean, what did you mean here[1] about "intercepting your posts"? If you're getting an edit conflict, it means someone else has posted between the time you opened and edit session and hit "save". Happens to me several times a day. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

He Sean7phil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to have moved on to other things now. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:42, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Workers kept at sea, then confined to hotel rooms and coerced into signing documents

NPR had a lengthy report on surviving workers kept at sea for 15 h, then confined to hotel rooms, not allowed to contact their families and coerced into signing documents by Transocean lawyers. Does anybody have a print source on this and want to put in the article? I have real stuff I must do right now. Abductive (reasoning) 19:02, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm all for inclusion if we can find a source. --N419BH (talk) 19:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Here it is on NPR's website. --N419BH (talk) 19:06, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be referred to as duress?Smallman12q (talk) 02:09, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

These claims are denied by Transocean.[2] Beagel (talk) 16:22, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Editing Closed

Why is editing closed on the oil spill. It is obvious that, like the missing peice of saftey equipment, the dom eplacement was ignoring the frozen sub surface tepmeratures which have apparently clogged the contianment dome. The sorrounding sea water apparently cannot get into the line or the system freezes. Why does this not happen with a typical production well at that depth? Apparently the ground temperature is warmer and able to keep the crude warm and prevent icing. So it looks like a closed dome with a zero pressure valve will be needed to regulate flow and prevent freezing seawater from enterting the flow.

A personal note. It has been obvious for some time that wikipedia is not fufilling it's mission as a public editable service. Numerous incidents of censorship, unfair (and unreasonable) treatment are evidenced at this institution.

Please have the owners stop the unfair use of wikipedia as another corperate weapon for unfair trade and outgrouping. Wikipedia clearly promotes many products and excluds others on as "frends only" basis. This mob behavior is the responsibility of wikipedia as a whole. It is their responsibility to control the natural process of crowd bahavior they create with this system. It is far to easy for inapropriate bahavior to precist when organized and well funded businesses interfere with an otherwise well meaning service. Please restore service. Denial of service is the fastest growing form of crime. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.94.232.31 (talk) 15:50, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

If you have evidence of those charges, present it. As far as "inappropriate behavior" is concerned, that's why it's semi-protected. Use your registered ID and you can modify. Or suggest changes here. Oh, and lose the semi-veiled legal threat. "Denial of service"? There is no constitutional right to edit wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:23, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

--Evidence VAPORIZER Lists only electric vaporizers and ignores the more popular (and patented) Ubie By American Smokeless. Hence unfairly trating that company while shameless promoting [Volcano] with a page. At least a mention of the most popular (and smallest portable) type of vaporizer would seem thoughtful.

Actually I find the article has no edit tab on the page. Why is the oil spill article closed?

To the other point: Some businesses are "banned" and others are "promoted" on wikipedia. That is simply unequal treatment. Equal treatment is a constitutional right. 72.94.233.226 (talk) 00:58, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

• I understand how it seems that some businesses are "promoted" on WP, and that can occur when their products get written about, and people are too distracted to contest articles about them. As you may know, a prominent computer company was caught (years ago) paying people to slant Wikipedia articles to be worded in their favor. Meanwhile, some other company (+products) is written about, but a group of "activist" editors will all start complaining about those articles, and then they'll get deleted, perhaps as a reaction to "mob pressure" against those pages (even though peer pressure is officially to be ignored, often it sways deletions). Most of these outcomes is just a matter of timing: if someone writes about a company, when everyone is focused on other issues, then that article is likely to remain on WP. For example, a company with products related to oil spills could probably get a valid article if mentioned in 2 separate oil spills (if only 1 spill, they would be limited to mention in that single oil-spill article). It is important to beware conflict of interest: no employee of the company is allowed to write about those products, even though ironically, they probably know the most accurate details about the products. However, for writers not in the company, whose products have been used extensively in 2 (or more) major news events, then an article should be allowed, and I encourage people to write about such companies related to this event (plus a 2nd event). Another major factor: some people appear to use Wikipedia to "prove their power against others" and if they focus on an article you've written, and they decide to force the outcome, they might contact buddies to muster force. This is like the "mob behavior" you mentioned (above), and I call Clique-ipedia: it is almost unstoppable to thwart a group, and an administrator might fear them because there are so many who could retaliate later, if sanctioned. At that point, fight fire with fire: join another group who will protect articles you're writing and help out-number the opposition. But remember, many of us do want articles about these technical products that heavily impact such oil-spill events, and a spinoff article from here is always an important topic for this talk-page. In fact, I might add you are quite brilliant to have seen the "mob" problem: I've been here 5 years before I could confirm: you are 100% right to be upset. After so many years, why is it still unfair? ...I think if there were rules in place to "force fairness" then those same people would write "the rules" to ensure how some companies could never get articles. As bad as this seems, articles can still be written if enough people join the effort to resist the others. -Wikid77 (talk) 03:07, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

72.94.232.31/72.94.233.226. I highly recommend you go create an account!. This will allow you to edit the page even when it is edit semi-protected pages once ten edits have been made, and their account is at least four days old. Pages are protected for a few days every now and then when Vandalism becomes too much to control by other means. Check out all the other great reasons to join wikipedia at Wikipedia:Why create an account?. --Aalox (talk) 03:23, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Thunderbirds

How come the Thunderbirds haven't shown up yet? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.253.48.80 (talk) 13:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Because they're fictional? 192.12.88.7 (talk) 22:52, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 209.91.43.246, 13 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

nitpick: there is no US Department of Defence. It's the Department of Defense.

209.91.43.246 (talk) 21:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done. Thank you for your contribution to Wikipedia. Creating an account at Wikipedia, while not required, is an affair of less than five minutes and comes with many benefits, including the ability to edit semiprotected pages. Intelligentsium 23:11, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Cameron International Link

Someone could add the correct Wikipedia Article to the "Cameron International" link, which would be: Cameron_International_Corporation —Preceding unsigned comment added by Intrr (talk • contribs) 22:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Done. It was automatically redirecting before but now it links directly to the page. Svenna (talk) 19:44, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Zetaex, 14 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

It has now been confirmed that 70,000 barrels per day are being released. An Exxon Valdez size spill every four days.

Zetaex (talk) 00:47, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Feinoha ^{Talk, My master} 01:19, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Possibly refers to this NPR story: [3] --Kkmurray (talk) 15:12, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Seems like a good story to me.Mojokabobo (talk) 17:06, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Unable to cut the pipe?

There seem to be too many leaks. Should the ROV should be able to cut the pipe so there is just one welhead to work on.

Is the well base leaking? Or is it all pipes above the valve? It seems a simple job to plug the pipe if it was cut clean and made a usable mechanical surface. But all the sketches indicate that it is still a tangled mess. How hard is it to cut the pipe?

Perhaps there is a better photo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.94.233.226 (talk) 01:10, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Under summary procedures English wikipedia removed the article from the front page in a couple of days

It shows clearly the bias; when other articles embarrass other nations they stay for weaks. If they embarass the British or Americans, no, they have to be removed in 1. --Leladax (talk) 02:56, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Need improved explanation of why the containment dome failed

The news media in general did a poor job of explaining why the 125-ton containment dome failed, and Wikipedia hasn't done much better. The article says, BP engineers are developing two possible options to control or stop the oil spill. The first and fastest is to place a subsea oil recovery system over the well head. This involves placing a 125-tonne (280,000 lb) dome over the largest of the well leaks and piping it to a storage vessel on the surface.[85] This option could collect as much as 85% of the leaking oil but is previously untested at such depths.[85] BP deployed the system on May 7-8, when it failed due to buildup of frozen methane hydrate crystals at the top of the dome. This buildup led to excess buoyancy and to clogging of the opening at the top of the dome where the riser was to be connected.

• A clogged opening could explain why BP won't be able to extract oil out of the dome -- but it doesn't explain why the dome failed to contain the oil. (Hydrate crystals would not cause oil to pass right through the concrete walls of the dome.)
• A buildup of natural gas, leading to excess buoyancy, might explain why the dome failed -- if the excess buoyancy caused the dome to lift right off of the sea floor. If that's the case, the article should say so explicitly. 71.219.240.123 (talk) 14:50, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps open innovation efforts to engage the public to find solutions to the oil spill should be mentioned in the article

deepwaterhorizonresponse.com has a solutions post page and number where solutions can be given. NPR interviewed the president of Innocentive.com, a leading open innovation web site, which now has 900 people signed up to develop solutions to this crisis. In addition I have setup a wiki to facilitate collaborative development of solutions at oilspill.wikia.com though it is preliminary. This oil spill has motivated a number of people to get involved and help both because of the scope of the crisis and, I think, because everyone can contemplate stopping a leak. A reference to this movement in the article might be worthwhile.--John 14:23 (talk) 20:07, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree with idea of mentioning such pages as encyclopedia worthy, though haven't reviewed any of the particular pages mentioned, so no comment on their suitability.

68.165.11.206 (talk) 13:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Jphoeft, 14 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Hello. I'm the social media coordinator for Unified Command and would like to make a change to the text that is displayed for our link. I would also like to make changes, if possible, to other parts of the article.

Please change the link from "U.S. Government/BP/Transocean unified command site on the "Gulf of Mexico-Transocean Drilling Incident" to "Unified Area Command, Deepwater Horizon Response - Official Government Site"

Jphoeft (talk) 21:34, 14 May 2010 (UTC)LCDR James R. Hoeft, (email address removed  Chzz  ►  00:58, 15 May 2010 (UTC))

Why? 75.85.170.208 (talk) 23:24, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, why? If this is more official, please provide a link stating so. —fetch·comms 00:49, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Article Focus

I've become a bit concerned about the focus of the article, particularly in the Consequences section. While the wide range of fall out is very important, I think it should be summarized here, with an ability to investigate it further in other articles. I fear that this section could become a day by day blow of the changes to off-shore drilling policy, instead of the focus being on the spill and it's direct effect. I've added main article links to United States offshore drilling debate and Atlantis Oil Field with the hopes of encouraging future major updates into those articles. I would like to see the fat in the sections trimmed down some into a summery, with the fat moved into the main articles. I leave that to other editors to see what they think should go or stay.--Aalox (talk) 01:35, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

7 BP executives but only 6 BP employees ?

The article, under the heading "Explosion and fire", says : "Seven BP executives were on board the rig celebrating the project's safety record when the blowout occurred" in the next paragraph, under the heading "Casualties and rescue efforts", it reads: "According to officials, 126 individuals were on board, of whom [...] six were from BP". So there is at least a BP official that is not a BP employee ??? The reference associated with the the '7 BP executive', a news video except, does not mention the number of BP executive, but merely 'a group of..' Shmget (talk) 01:40, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Maybe one was a consultant? An interesting issue, but could probably be resolved by getting a list of names somehow. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:30, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Geyser or Spill

A spill comes from above via a cup or a vessel like Exxon-Valdez, on the other hand, a geyser comes from below gushing from the ground like Yellowstone National Park. I know this is just semantics but they matter, just curious!69.137.120.81 (talk) 01:41, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I've thought from the beginning that "spill" was kind of an odd term to be using in this case. But what do the sources call it? I did see one reference today that called it a "gusher", which is probably closer to the mark. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:49, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Oil spill is the correct term. Gandydancer (talk) 10:47, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

"Oil spill" is, I agree, as others noted above, a term that many might misinterpret and in that sense misleading but as Gandydancer notes, is still the commonly used term. A more precise wording might be "underwater spill" or a spill involving an "underwater leak" which would give a more more accurate picture than using the traditional term "Spill" without modifiers. Perhaps something along those lines might be used in the article.Harel (talk) 21:36, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not technically a "spill", as it's bubbling up. But if that's what the media are calling it, then that's what it is. (It wouldn't be the first time the media have mislabeled something.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:29, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Oil leaking from a tanker is not techincally spilling out either - it is leaking or gushing out through a rupture in the structure that was confining it. Gandydancer (talk) 22:43, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Unless it's above the waterline. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:48, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Nope. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/spill Gandydancer (talk) 01:45, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Right, it's a spill whether above or below the waterline, as per "to cause or allow to run or fall from a container". In the case of an offshore drilling platform, the "container" would be the platform's drilling system, I suppose. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:25, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I would consider the container to be the earth. Gandydancer (talk) 13:27, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

75 million cap

The article states: "Currently, United States federal law limits BP's liability for non-cleanup costs to $75 million", but the citation tells a much more complicated story about the liability cap, and the sentence as stated in the article may not be true. 66.206.115.136 (talk) 01:56, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Scientists find giant oil plumes under Gulf

This is certainly something to be concerned about: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37171468/ns/us_news-the_new_york_times/ Gandydancer (talk) 02:28, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, and this should be added to the wiki entry in the section on the size of the leak.

It might also be useful to include some calculations based on the largest of the reported plumes:

10 miles x 3 miles by 300 feet is 1.7 cubic miles.

1.7 cubic miles is 1,876,900,000,000 gallons.

Exxon Valdez was ~11,000,000 gallons.

Largest spill in history according to wikipedia was 462,000,000 gallons.

So if these numbers are correct, Deepwater Horizon is now the largest oil spill in history *by a factor of more than 4,000*.

And that's only counting the largest of several plumes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimshowalter (talk • contribs) 04:18, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Those figures are implausibly massive. The plumes are of oil suspended in the water; they aren't solid blocks of oil. The plumes' existence and size definitely deserve a mention, but don't extrapolate the figures given because the result will not be accurate. Wait till an article estimating the amount of oil in these plumes appears and quote figures from that. --Xyiyizi 15:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The information is relevant and I was in the process of extracting information from the article but in the second page it states: "Much about the situation below the water remains unclear, and the scientists stressed that their results were preliminary." That made it a case of including the information with a label of "According to scientists doing preliminary analysis it may be that..." and so on or maybe just waiting a few days for this information to become more precise. I would rather opt for more information to be factually determined and then include it. GaussianCopula (talk) 05:01, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps... On the other hand, this information has now been covered by all the major news outlets. Furthermore, your concerns that

"Much about the situation below the water remains unclear, and the scientists stressed that their results were preliminary." That made it a case of including the information with a label of "According to scientists doing preliminary analysis it may be that..."

That could apply to just about everything in this article. It seems that they have found the plumes and have tested the surrounding waters for oxygen content, but since they've never seen anything like it they are (naturally) unsure of other factors, and that may take some time. Gandydancer (talk) 14:08, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I am not going to challenge what you have just indicated. Like I said, when I first read your initial statement I went to the article and felt it was relevant to include. I then hesitated when in the second page I read what was previously indicated. I decided I will wait before including the information. If you or anyone else wants to extract information from this article and include it in the article, be assured that I will not make any attempts to remove it or challenge it. That is all. GaussianCopula (talk) 02:51, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

This "event" is being discussed only in terms of the oil being discharged into the gulf, but there is some concern that the amounts of natural gases such as methane that are escaping from the well are in excess of the amounts of oil that are being released into the water. The environmental impact of these gases may be of more import than that of the oil. It is shocking that this element of the discussion is being overlooked by almost everyone who is discussing the matter publicly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Captainbs (talk • contribs) 16:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

May I suggest that the citation in Dispersants, from the Christian Science Monitor , currently #133, be replaced by a different source. The article is very vague about who is the scientist inquiring on the dispersant are. For example, this quote from the article "Inquiries among independent scientists inquired whether Corexit might be responsible.", is very vague. Also the part about the underwater plumes being caused by corexit is a bit redundant as its already discussed in the section Underwater oil Plumes. As for the size of the spill in comparison to others, the BBC had this article on the 7th. Vishiano (talk) 19:35, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Some personal attacks from an IP

Trolling: Editorializing and blanket personal attacks on wikipedians. - Aalox (Say Hello • My Work) 20:11, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Kill this article. Real-time journalism like this is NOT ENCYCLOPEDIC Right. Like I said. You're all non-neutral DOPES! 108.7.15.25 (talk) 03:17, 15 May 2010 (UTC) CASE IN POINT: See discussion edit 11:06, 15 May 2010 Baseball Bugs (talk | contribs) (115,503 bytes) (il garbagio) User:Baseball Bugs has seen fit to summarily and arrogantly REMOVE this section expressing a LEGITIMATE CONCERN about how this article digresses from the purpose of Wikipedia. No discussion. Not even a simple "no you have your facts wrong about WP". JUST SUMMARY REMOVAL with the comment "il garbagio" (i.e."arrogantly"). User:Baseball Bugs you are way out of line. Sure, I called some people dopes. They called for it, but you are worse, you EXEMPLIFY the misplaced power of ever presence. You win because you are merely always there. In WP, the absolute power of ever presence corrupts to the point where you think you can get away with what you did! THIS ARTICLE IS REAL TIME JOURNALISM AND IT IS UNENCYCLOPEDIC. User:Baseball Bugs, you can leave a comment, discuss, and/or correct me. But you should be SANCTIONED for that bullshit you pulled. If you said nothing, and nobody else did either, my comment would have disappeared into oblivion. As it was, somehow you thought YOU AND YOU ALONE were the authority on the matter. 108.7.15.25 (talk) 07:56, 16 May 2010 (UTC) I'll be removing the above nonsense once the IP has been blocked. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:20, 16 May 2010 (UTC) YOU WIN! Like I said, your ever-presence gives you the power to IGNORE, the power to PREVENT third parties from piping in. You succeeded all right! You didn't feel you needed to have a CIVIL discussion rejecting the proposition. That would have worked. Or, you could have left it alone and it might died! As it is, you've demonstrated to the world the POWER of your UTTER ARROGANCE! Here, you presumed that ONLY YOU AND YOU ALONE had anything to say, and you felt you could be so DRACONIAN as to remove the idea without discussion! Where did you get that idea? I see on your pages that you've had to resort to blocking there too! Do you "bring it on" like this often? In all my years editing WP, I've never ever come across behavior like yours. I gave it up partly because a small amount of arrogance is an occupational hazard of spending so much of one's time on WP. Encountering it was a little annoying, but YOU TAKE THE CAKE! WIKIPEDIA AT IT'S WORST! 108.7.8.99 (talk) 09:03, 16 May 2010 (UTC) You haven't got the point, 108. Bugs is never wrong. He is right here. We are building an encyclopedia together. He is a great asset to the project. Please register a user name. Kittybrewster ☎ 09:53, 16 May 2010 (UTC) I understand your point, and I'm fine with it, IF you are saying that he disagreed with the suggestion that the article doesn't belong. But, he didn't! He summarily and without discussion DELETED IT! He even had a few snide words on the side ("el garbage-o" or something like that). He didn't even say "HEY, your tone is un-called-for, stop it". He then deleted follow-on text that was justifiably critical of his unheard-of (in my experience) action, engaged in an edit war, then made one-sided justification for blocking. This guy might be nice most of the time, but today he pulled out all his powers to BULLY. 108.7.8.99 (talk) 10:11, 16 May 2010 (UTC) I get your point too. But please would you lose the capital letters. Kittybrewster ☎ 10:40, 16 May 2010 (UTC) Okey Dokey.  :-) 108.7.8.99 (talk) 11:06, 16 May 2010 (UTC) Thank you 108. @Bugs. Please would you AGF and not seek to block 108. Kittybrewster ☎ 11:44, 16 May 2010 (UTC) Guys, this is all pretty well toned down now. But, I was surprised that Bugs had changed the name of the section to "Personal Attacks from an IP". I see it as more like calling an over-reaction what it was. But anyway, talk pages are primarily for discussion of the article. I changed the title back to the essential issue. I toned it down with lower case and fewer exclamations. If it was left as Bugs' title, it wouldn't be about the article, and the text after it would make no sense. It would also make Bugs appear like he had a big chip on his shoulder. Actually, I would think Bugs would want me to keep the original capitalized text and all the exclamation points - It does make me look bad! I am perfectly willing to let myself look foolish here by leaving my, uh, "toned up" initial comments. 108.7.8.99 (talk) 13:07, 16 May 2010 (UTC) Very good. Now would everybody please retire to their dressing rooms for a nice cup of tea and a sit down. Kittybrewster ☎ 13:19, 16 May 2010 (UTC) Heh. Heh. Heh. I could use a sit-down! All that testosterone and fighting has me all drawn out. Kittybrewster, you're a nice stabilizing influence. I feel much better now. Yours, "108" 108.7.8.99 (talk) 13:36, 16 May 2010 (UTC) And he got one, a week's worth, for block evasion. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:31, 16 May 2010 (UTC) You win, Bugs!  :-) 108.7.0.217 (talk) 04:40, 17 May 2010 (UTC) Not so fast there Kitty, I'd like to have my say as well. :) The discussion page is for discussion and it "bugs" me that anyone would change or erase anything anyone else says, even when it is nuts. To poster 108: You don't seem to understand the beauty of Wikipedia and the advantage it has over what we used to have to use for information. By your way of thinking we would just now be getting around to writing articles on the flu pandemic and the Haiti earthquake, to name just two out of hundrends. I LOVE Wikipedia! OK, I'll get off my soap box now and have a nice cup of Earl Gray tea. Gandydancer (talk) 13:48, 16 May 2010 (UTC) I took it as trolling: Editorializing and blanket personal attacks on wikipedians. In short, nothing of any value to the article. If y'all think differently, you're welcome to it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:39, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Spill discharge whitewashed in article

The spill has discharged 56,000 to 84,000 barrels a day according to independent researchers. And this is only from one of the leaks. [4] Why is the number 5000 barrels a day still in the lead? According to that discharge rate, the spill has released at least 1.5 million barrels, or 60 million gallons. Once again, only from one of the leaks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.161.166.130 (talk) 13:27, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I recommend increasing the estimated range on the oil spill flow rate. I just read this article http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36800673/ns/us_news-environment/ which meets wiki reliability that puts the rate closer to 200,000 barrels a day. Mojokabobo (talk) 17:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

200,000 GALLONS, not barrels. Thats two very different units. - Aalox (Say Hello • My Work) 20:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I am so sorry about that. I totally misread the article. Thank god it's not barrels, lol, that'd be wwwwaaayyyy worse. I'm so sorry I misread that. my apologies. Mojokabobo (talk) 17:02, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Coordinates are incorrect

I am not registered in English Wiki but coordinates of Deepwater Horizon are incorrect. They should be: 28°23'8.36"N 88°43'47.49" You can verify it here: http://wikimapia.org/16300357/Deepwater-Horizon-oil-spill-2010 Please update. 85.238.124.248 (talk) 00:41, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

big error

"Steven Wereley, an associate professor at Purdue University used a computer analysis (particle image velocimetry) yielding a rate of 700,000 barrels (29,000,000 US gal) per day.[72][73] "

Someone has multiplied by 10 those numbers. How could someone make write such a big mistake? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.112.28.79 (talk) 05:49, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done Been a lot of reformatting of units lately. Must have been an extra zero added somehow during that. Corrected now.- Aalox (Say Hello • My Work) 06:45, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposal: Make early mention of the fact that this is an oil gusher

Originally to resolve including "Gulf Gusher" as an alternative title for the article

Name	Hits	Link
Deepwater horizon oil spill	1,040	[5]
Gulf of Mexico oil spill	6,290	[6]
BP oil spill	2,620	[7]
Deepwater BP oil spill	18	[8]
"oil gusher" (with quotes)	859	"oil+gusher"&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=
oil gusher (no quotes)	4920	[9]
Gulf gusher	105	[10]

We can't include every nickname people create for this thing or the lead will be 5 miles long.- Aalox (Say Hello • My Work) 07:33, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is not some nickname that I invented. The problem with the present catastrophe is that it is not a "leak" or a "spill", but an immense underwater oil gusher. For "oil gusher", Google News give 881 results, practically all about the present catastrophe. Since "oil gusher" has already its general meaning, I took the second best, which is sufficiently specific and also relatively widely used. Kokot.kokotisko (talk) 08:05, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Unlike the oil gushers of the 1800s and early 1900s, this well had pressure control systems that failed. The proper term is blowout. Gulf gusher also doesn't have a result listing at all comparable to the other names (Less then a tenth).- Aalox (Say Hello • My Work) 08:21, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Please notice the update that I made to the table. Unfortunately, it seems that oil gusher history has not ended in 1800s and 1900s. Please note that 100% hits on the first three pages of the Gg. News searches for "oil gusher", resp. oil gusher (without quotes) talk about the present catastrophe. With your kind permission, I would account for this reported fact in the intro section of the article. Kokot.kokotisko (talk) 10:49, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't give premission, we need to follow the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle and reach Wikipedia:Consensus. Give it a day or so and see what happens here. Also, the only thing the oil gusher search results prove is that we should delete the Oil Gusher article and make it a redirect to here (/sarcasm), it says nothing about Gulf Gusher being a name for this event. - Aalox (Say Hello • My Work) 12:44, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for education, less for reporting me preventively on the admins board (why didn't you report yourself?). As for my proposal, I don't mean to create names, I just want to call spade a spade. For such a long time we read about 1,000bbl/day 'leak', then 5,000bbl/day, now it turns out like 25,000 bbl/day or more gushing unrestricted from a 20 inch pipe. The search results of "oil gusher" prove that for the news today, oil gusher is a synonym for the present disaster. Maybe in 50 years there will be more such disasters (if current practice of exploration continues) and "Gulf gusher" will not be specific enough to identify which one we are talking about. But Wikipedia will remain open and the generations after us will surely be able to add the disambig page. Kokot.kokotisko (talk) 14:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Please do not side step the issue in an attempt to make yourself look correct. Your edits [11], [12] and [13] are attempting to include "Gulf Gusher" as an alternative title for the article. This is VERY different from simply making early mention an oil gusher. - Aalox (Say Hello • My Work) 15:22, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sidestepping, just making a concession. I still think that the best way to say that this is a gusher is to use Gulf gusher among the alternative names, as roughly 100 of news reports did. That gives everybody the correct picture of the situation right from the beginning. But with strong opponents like you, 100 news reports is not enough. Therefore, I resort to the second best solution, to state that it is an oil gusher near the beginning, which you fortunately hold to be an entirely different issue. Kokot.kokotisko (talk) 17:18, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah, thank you for clarifying. Closing 'Gulf Gusher', opening Blowout vs Gusher. Being an engineer, I do have a strong preference for the techically correct terms, in this case, blowout over oil gusher. I was actually in the middle of merging the two articles before this all started. Perhaps if you could somehow make it clear blowout is the techical term while still using gusher. Perhaps something along the lines of "an on going blowout, simular to the oil gushers of the 1800s"? 17:32, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Anything, if it gives the right intuitive idea of the magnitude of the ongoing spill. The word "gusher", which is not supposed to occur in 2000s, does justice to the current disaster. I have nothing against improving the wording, but I consider "blowout" more of a PR term in this particular case. It's as if when 5 safety mechanisms fail one by one, the blowout preventer still retains the last safety feature of preventing the resulting gusher to be called by its name. Kokot.kokotisko (talk) 17:56, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

• I'm opposed to the term gusher. My view is the media are currently using the term in a matter of emphasized prose not in terms of technical correctness. I do not see it as a neutral term and although I think it does accurately describe the magnitude of the catastrophe, I don't think its use is appropriate. Eitehr way, its an issue that should be resolved outside of this article and since most wikipedia articles use blowout at a current time, that's where I'm placing my support. Labattblueboy (talk) 18:22, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

What about the role of BP in US military contracts?

What does BPs winning of large jet fuel contracts have to do with environmental exceptions and large awards in Iraqi oil??

• April 06, 2010 -- "Air BP, Warrenville, Ill. is being awarded a maximum $124,754,182 fixed-price with economic price adjustment, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract for aviation turbine fuel."

• http://www.defense.gov/contracts/contract.aspx?contractid=4253

• 16-Aug-2009 -- "BP West Coast Products (dba Arco) in La Palma, CA won a maximum $516.8 million fixed price with economic price adjustment, indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity contract (SP0600-09-D-0512) for aviation fuel."

• http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/US-Defense-Energy-Support-Center-Awards-Up-to-904M-in-Fuel-Contracts-05707/

• August 24, 2008 -- "Air BP, Warrenville, Ill. is being awarded a maximum $12,446,821 fixed price with economic price adjustment contract for jet fuel."

• http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-183593856.html

• September 14, 2005 -- "BP West Coast Products LLC, La Palma, Calif., is being awarded a maximum $587,804,938 fixed price with economic price adjustment for JP8 Turbine Fuel and F-76 Fuel for Defense Energy Support Center. "

• http://www.accessmylibrary.com/article-1G1-136245757/usa-bp-west-coast.html

• AIR BP: http://www.bp.com/homepage.do?categoryId=6100

Krizpy99 (talk) 14:33, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow where this is heading? Is this some sort of synthesis we're supposed to do? We can't add anything that hasn't been presented by reliable sources. __meco (talk) 19:16, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't defense contracts themselves provided by the federal government be considered reliable?

And what does BPs role of being (seemingly) the largest winning or US Defense fuel contracts possible have to do with their getting environemtnal exceptions?? You know, military needs the oil, so gov't gives okay -- as our military intervention overseas is impossible without fuel.

/agree Go OP --Subarusvx (talk) 00:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see how this is relevant to the oil spill. Jtrainor (talk) 07:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

How is this not relevent? Are we going to ignore all the 'free passes' that BP got before the spill occurred? Shall we also ignore all the cries for deregulation and fail to examine how this played into the accident?

I don't see how getting trillions of dollars in contracts from the US Military for fuel over the last 10 years doesn't play into BPs yearning for bigger better wells in deeper more dangerous waters. I also don't see how you cannot relate BPs role as a war fueler to the 'free pass' it had gotten concerning environmental regulations.

Furthermore, BP received the biggest wins in the Iraq oil lottery -- no doubt because the US has with BP the biggest contracts.

This isn't relevant to the oil spill because it's about BP in general and not the oil spill specifically. Go edit that into the BP article, it's irrelevant here and will be removed as off-topic. Jtrainor (talk) 18:49, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

60 Minutes segment- Blowout: The Deepwater Horizon Disaster

This segment was on 60 Minutes last night: Blowout: The Deepwater Horizon Disaster. It explains some of the mishaps leading to the disaster. --Millstoner (talk) 14:49, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

MS Paint Illustrations.

Is someone going to give an award to the 5-year-old who drew the illustrations in the article using MS Paint? Don't let quality work go unrewarded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.64.164.150 (talk) 21:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Point taken, don't be flippant. Ottre 23:56, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

[14]. While extremely crude, they do admittedly do the job. Unless you can do better (Which if you can PLEASE DO), try to be nice. 20:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I just love the "robot" and "robots" thrown in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.64.164.150 (talk) 19:32, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Pictures/Diagrams needed

Could we get some decent diagrams for this article? There are limited pd gov. galleries out there such as:

• Coastguard
• NOAA
• NOAA
• IncidentNews
• Fish and Wildlife Service

Smallman12q (talk) 01:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Added excellent map of newly doubled, 19% of Gulf federal waters now (as of May 18 2010 6pm EST) closed to fishing, copyright free from NOAA. Paulscrawl (talk) 20:24, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Eight edits lost in copyedit

These edits were lost when I began switching over to list-defined references today. Could somebody reinsert them please. Ottre 06:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Citing WSJ articles

There are references to 4 or 5 WSJ articles. But WSJ requires a subscription to access these articles. Shouldn't the references be removed? --Sarabseth (talk) 09:45, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Definitely not, the WSJ has the most comprehensive coverage of the spill of any American newspaper. I have begun switching to list-defined references which provides space for a quote in each citation (for an example, see ref #6). Ottre 11:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Isn't there a policy of not citing subscription-required sources?

Also, "the WSJ has the most comprehensive coverage of the spill of any American newspaper" is extremely debatable. --Sarabseth (talk) 11:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, WP:PAYWALL says the opposite. Gabbe (talk) 12:28, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

There is a frequent confusion with WP:EL, which discourages links to pay sites. But for general sourcing they are absolutely acceptable (as would be a scientific book you have to buy or a journal article only available via Inter-Library-Loan to many readers). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to all three of you! --Sarabseth (talk) 15:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

You could put {{Subscription required}} in the id section of the citation template.Smallman12q (talk) 17:22, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The "missing, presumed dead"

must have families with merpeople by now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Athinker (talk • contribs) 15:07, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree, they are dead. Just call them dead. Every other source is calling them dead. It looks creepy to refer to them as "missing." They are not missing. They are dead, despite the fact that bodies were not recovered. 64.142.90.33 (talk) 07:28, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

"presumed dead" is factually correct. stating that they are dead (implying fact) cannot be verified. just because their whereabouts haven't come to public attention doesn't mean they are dead. there may well be good reasons why they don't want to be found. if i were in their position i would possibly fear being found by the responsible companies, not from my wrongdoing (assuming i were innocent) but from mistreatment and legal threats. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.129.23.146 (talk) 07:38, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Spill flow rate internal reference

I agree that the wording in the lead should be clear that there is much debate and a wide range of estimates, but citing another section of the same article is extremely bad practice. There is a link to that section (which I just fixed) directly below where Aalox added this internal citation, which should be sufficient. Any citations must adhere to Wikipedia's policy on verifiability and guideline on reliability, which a circular citation to Wikipedia fails completely. There are other ways to resolve disagreements about content.--~TPW 15:47, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Aalox post the following message to my talk page, which I am copying here to keep the discussion in one place:

Would you mind replace the reference you removed from the lead of Deepwater Horizon oil spill. That particular sentance has been the focus of a great deal of controversy, and I wanted to make it as clear as possible where those numbers are coming from (a summary of all the estimates detailed in Deepwater_Horizon_oil_spill#Spill_flow_rate). The reference isn't even that cicular, it is the lead referecing a subsection. I know that it isn't standard and proper to do so, but I really wanted to WP:Ignore all rules and have that in there until things calm down on this article.

By having that reference in there, I think it will stop people from going back and forth in a circle fighting about it that sentance, and productively moving forward with the expansion and refinement of this article.

Thanks, - Aalox (Say Hello • My Work) 15:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Ignoring all rules is definitely the way to go if you achieve consensus here to do so. I don't think an inline citation achieves your goal of making sure that the lead reflects the entire, broad range of credible estimates. Instead it harms the credibility of the article by saying, "we did our homework by looking further down the page." Citations are only used for citing reliable sources, not as a way to provide a link to another part of the page. Is there a news source which discusses how diverse the estimates are? That would be the best option in my opinion.--~TPW 17:21, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't notice the conversation you started here. A news article discussing the diversity of the estimates would be very good and I'll keep an eye out for one. Barring that, if it happens again, I support adding a temporary internal reference if others agree. - Aalox (Say Hello • My Work) 17:40, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Don't use an inline citation, since it's not necessary. Just link "numerous estimates" to the appropriate section and you will have the same effect. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 08:00, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Spill flow rate numbers

I recommend increasing the estimated range on the oil spill flow rate. I just read this article http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36800673/ns/us_news-environment/ which meets wiki reliability that puts the rate closer to 200,000 barrels a day. Mojokabobo (talk) 17:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the article linked by Mojokabobo mentions 200,000 gallons or 5000 barrels per day, not 200,000 barrels. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:21, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. - Aalox (Say Hello • My Work) 17:40, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

In their permit to derill, bp estimated162000 bbl/day worst case. Huffington post misread it as 162000 gallons. The permit is ambiguous in that it does not spell out units everywhere(though reading othe discharge estimates pointys clearly to barrels). Thus I have also linked the thunder horse permit which does include units and removes the ambiguity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jinxman1 (talk • contribs) 05:58, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I am so sorry, i misread the article that i quoted there, it's 200,000 gallons a day, not barrels *headslap* Mojokabobo (talk) 16:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

There is further detail in the House sub-committee page; Steve Wereley, Professor of Mechanical Engineering at Purdue, gave a presentation with his estimate of 56,000 - 84,000 barrels per day. Details can be found here: <http://energycommerce.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2008:energy-and-commerce-subcommittee-briefing-on-qsizing-up-the-bp-oil-spill-science-and-engineering-measuring-methodsq&catid=122:media-advisories&Itemid=55> Mhmonkman (talk) 00:37, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The article is misleadingly even-handed about the spill rate numbers, presenting 5,000 barrels a day as a still-current lower figure. But an expert testified today that BP is completely alone in clinging to the 5,000-barrel figure as a plausible number. The article needs to be changed to reflect the current consensus of all outside parties. For Wikipedia to continue to represent the 5k figure as just one among many plausible estimates is to function as a propaganda outlet for BP:

"This is not rocket science," said Steve Wereley, associate mechanical engineering professor at Purdue University, who pegged the spill's volume at about 70,000 barrels per day. "All outside estimates are considerably higher than BP's." [15] MdArtLover (talk) 02:34, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

BP is no longer asserting the 5000 barrel spill rate. This is primarily due to the fact that they are now recovering 5000 barrels/day and oil is still gushing out of the leak points.

Sparkatus (talk) 14:35, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Size of oil well

Does anyone know the estimated size of the Macondo Prospect?--ML5 (talk) 16:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Found something. 50 million barrels of crude. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601072&sid=aawwCXDN1UsM --ML5 (talk) 11:32, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Rweiand, 18 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Spelling error. Please change: The Facebook group Everyday Wildlife Chanpions

to The Facebook group Everyday Wildlife Champions

Rweiand (talk) 17:42, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

 Not done: - I removed the reference to the Facebook group, as inline external links are not appropriate per the external link policy. Thanks for spotting that, though!--~TPW 17:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Archiving proposal

Considering the volume of information here, I suggest setting up a bot to archive this article's talk page. Most threads here die out after a day or two with a few outliers that have some five days' worth of discussion, so I believe we could set the bot to archive any thread with ten days of inactivity safely enough.--~TPW 18:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

It looks like that is already the case: - Aalox (Say Hello • My Work) 19:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Yep, I missed that - but this is set up for archiving after ten days and we have threads that ended on 29 April. I will instead just try to fix it.--~TPW 19:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I can understand. The sections on changing the name from Deepwater Horizon drilling rig explosion tp Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Are still around to. It's crazy, that ended weeks ago (but some people keep adding to it). I close them up with that collapsable table thing and recommended that they create a new section if they want to propose moving it again. Leaving it open will just make a huge mess, with people asking to include oil spill getting mixed up with people asking to include BP. - Aalox (Say Hello • My Work) 20:13, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

In addition I have reduced the archive interval to 8 days. This talk page is currently around 100k which isn't too bad for an active articlel; but perhaps because of the semi protection, some probably pointless discussions and I guess other issues, it currently has 47 different topics which is quite a few and probably too many. Nil Einne (talk) 20:24, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

So what happened?

Is it safe to say that BP had intercourse with the floor of the Gulf and the floor came?192.12.88.7 (talk) 22:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Only if you say it was unprotected intercourse. --Sarabseth (talk) 00:48, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Basically, these corporate assholes are greedy mfers. The pipe is sheered meaning there is no way whatsoever to even saw through that THICK pipe. They want to plug or contain the oil so they must be planning to build a large container around it, by digging into the ground basically making a construction site underwater? Im-fucking-possible. They dont want to nuke it, the only option there has ever been...what next get aliens to help you? lol...that is alot of destruction, your so in big trouble with other nations and you might get beat up by waiting like this by other nations. That is a fucking deathtoll on the environment right there mfers, enjoy the ridicule after some other country comes in to demolish your ass. That is a major corporate suicide right there.

Subjective "worst" claim

Neutrality of article may be in question by citing Exxon Valdez as the "worst" oil spill in US history. Valdez leaked 37k tonnes of oil into Prince William Sound, but the Greenpoint, Brooklyn spill leaked somewhere between 55.2-97.4k. tonnes, and the Hawaiian Patriot spill leaked 109k tonnes. (Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oil_spills) While it may be argued that the Valdez spill caused more damage to coastline, damage to the Gulf Coast is being mitigated.

Oftenoptional (talk) 14:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Mitigated? Do the math! Nobody believes that a "mere" 5,000 barrels per day are leaking. Imagine a worse-case scenario and use the 70,000 figure, or even worse use the 100,000 figure as was suggested today by experts after they had seen the video. This is a heartbreaking ecological disaster, and a financial and emotional disaster for the people of the Louisiana coast who have suffered so much already. And just let us hope that this is not the last straw for the beautiful coral reefs that are already threatened by global warming and pollution Gandydancer (talk) 00:08, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

You misunderstand my point. I do not mean to downplay the severity of the current crisis, my concern is as to the accuracy of the article claiming that the Valdez spill was the worst spill in US history, when it was never the largest oil spill in that category.Oftenoptional (talk) 18:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Lease rights to Deepwater Horizon

Current, states "leased to BP 75%, Anadarko 25% and Mitsui 10%", which adds up to 110%. This is impossible, citation 15, says that BP is actually leasing 65%. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.156.2.12 (talk) 18:55, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Ownership needs to add up to 100%

{{editsemiprotected}}

Under the Background, deepwater horizon heading it states "the rig was owned by Transocean Ltd. and leased to BP 75%, Anadarko 25% and Mitsui 10% until September 2013"

It should say "the rig was owned by Transocean Ltd. and leased to BP 65%, Anadarko 25% and Mitsui 10% until September 2013"

The existing does not add up to 100%. After reading reference 15, I decided BP 65% is correct.

Wog400 (talk) 22:45, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done -- œ^™ 01:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The rig was to leased to BP who was the only operator of the Macondo Prospect. The Macondo prospect was owned by BP 65%, Anadarko 25% and Mitsui 10% under a federal lease. Please do not confuse these two things. Beagel (talk) 03:50, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 74.105.91.119, 20 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Please change "Short term effects" to "Short-term effects" and "Long term effects" to "Long-term effects". Without hyphens, it's necessary to identify what a "term effect" is and how such an effect may be short or long.

74.105.91.119 (talk) 01:37, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done. I'm assuming you meant "efforts" instead of "effects". -- œ^™ 01:52, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

BTW, the article will be automatically unprotected on May 23, so in just a few days you will be able to make these edits yourself. However, an even better option would be to register for an account! -- œ^™ 01:54, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Short Term Efforts - edit request

Should be 3000 barrels being recaptured instead of 3000 gallons —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chenxiyuan (talk • contribs) 04:24, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Editorializing

{{editsemiprotected}} The media analysis subsection states (apparently disquotationally) that "Six years later, BP still wasn’t ready" in reference to the company's capability for dealing with a major oil spill. This opinion does not seem to attributed to any commentator or reliable source, and so does not seem a neutral statement of uncontroversial fact. I propose that it be removed. Thank you. 86.45.155.132 (talk) 04:28, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Seems covered to me: 2004 [...] the company wasn't prepared for the long-term, round-the-clock task of dealing with a deep-sea spill.[...] It still isn't, as Deepwater Horizon demonstrates - 2010 being 6 years after 2004.  Chzz  ►  11:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

 Not done

Need cite for assertion that up to 100,000 barrels a day leaking. Here's one.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126809525

68.165.11.206 (talk) 13:35, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

solusion

i think i have the answer use brazilan magnets around the outside of pipe then force some metal scrap metal in the pipe enought to form a doughnut shape then use a rubber coated steel ball and force that into the pipe if it is a 16 incn pipe than a 14 inch ball brazilian magnets are strong and don't demagnatize for 300 hundred years - raymond gallant

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.138.13.146 (talk) 15:22, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Oil in Gulf coast

About the third paragraph where it says "Experts fear that due to factors such as petroleum toxicity and oxygen depletion, it will result in an environmental disaster whether it reaches Gulf coast or not." Here are some of the news. Tar balls have been found on the beaches of Alabama. Recently, losts of oil have been found on the marshes of the coasts of Louisiana affecting the wildlife there. Now, the oil is expected to reach the coasts of Key West and Cuba less than 2 days from now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.98.184.33 (talk) 23:50, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. As the writer above points out, the oil most certainly HAS reached the gulf coast, as reported, with photo, by MSNBC: "Thick, sticky oil crept deeper into delicate marshes of the Mississippi Delta Friday, an arrival dreaded for a month since the crude started spewing into the Gulf" [16] . Yet the Wiki article still speaks of "reaching the coast" as a hypothetical occurrence: "Experts fear that ... it will result in an environmental disaster whether it reaches Gulf coast or not". Just sayin'.... MdArtLover (talk) 17:21, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I just removed "whether it reaches Gulf coast or not" from the lead. Thundermaker (talk) 17:38, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! MdArtLover (talk) 17:47, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Last estimate in Liter

Please put the figure for the last estimate in SI units of liter, that is: 4 000 000 G * 3.785411784 L/G = 15 141 647.136 L; 15 000 000 Liter, rounded properly.

The 4,000,000 G number was converted and then rounded already; the original bbl number should be used for conversion to liters.

100,000 bbl * 158.9873 l/bbl = 15,898,730 l which rounds up to 16,000,000. Thundermaker (talk) 17:46, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Edits

Flow estimates need to reference the newest sources where BP is drawing 5000 Barrels per day through the insertion tubes, and the flow is still strong. http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gIXWYBTpLtSayJtg41LKXpxSxVPAD9FQPKC00

Expansion predictions should indicate the possibility of a Loop Current eddy forming and taking significant volumes of oil towards Texas. http://www.roffs.com/DeepwaterHorizon/ROFFSOil20May10.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.236.65.120 (talk) 00:44, 21 May 2010 (UTC)