Jump to content

Talk:Deepwater Horizon oil spill

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 66.223.168.45 (talk) at 00:32, 26 May 2010 (→Where did it start?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Energy portal news
Template:Add

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I'm all for inclusion if we can find a source. --N419BH (talk) 19:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here it is on NPR's website. --N419BH (talk) 19:06, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't that be referred to as duress?Smallman12q (talk) 02:09, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
These claims are denied by Transocean.[1] Beagel (talk) 16:22, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

 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)[reply]
Possibly refers to this NPR story: [2] --Kkmurray (talk) 15:12, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like a good story to me.Mojokabobo (talk) 17:06, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The most reliable estimate is now 95,000 barrels per day (70,000 + 25 BPD). Steve Wereley, a professor of mechanical engineering at Purdue University, testified that this was the combined leak rate before congress.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/richard-adams-blog/2010/may/19/deepwater-horizon-gulf-oil-spill-size http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/05/19/94467/engineer-oil-spill-videos-show.html http://www.bostonherald.com/news/national/south/view.bg?articleid=1256108&srvc=rss

The Government still has not backed off the 5,000 barrel per day estimate http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/19/gulf-oil-spill-markey-dem_n_582444.htm

But BP has already admitted that it has been siphoning 5000 bpd and video of the siphon showed that 5000 bpd barely put a dent in the amount leaking. http://blog.alexanderhiggins.com/2010/05/20/bp-siphon-capturing-5000-barrels-oil-day/ http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/environment/2010-05-21-wetlands_N.htm http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oil-spill/index.ssf/2010/05/bp_concedes_more_oil_spilling.html Alexhiggins732 (talk) 23:36, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A possible explanation of the discrepancy is that a large fraction of the volume coming out of the ground is gas, not oil. See http://www.theenergycollective.com/TheEnergyCollective/66377
—WWoods (talk) 00:39, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Oil spill is the correct term. Gandydancer (talk) 10:47, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Unless it's above the waterline. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:48, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/spill Gandydancer (talk) 01:45, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
I would consider the container to be the earth. Gandydancer (talk) 13:27, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oil spill is the NOT correct term. The official term, even in government documents, for this type of event is BLOWOUT. Someone else provide a reference, I don't remember where I downloaded the oil spill response plan documents from (it may have been the huffington post). I have the document, but not the source.

Alexhiggins732 (talk) 23:41, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Spill" is definitely misleading, since it implies a finite container, and thus grossly understates the case - and what a coincidence that we've all taken to calling it that, much to the convenience of the corporate perpetrators? Anyway, "blowout" has the dual virtues of being both more technically correct and more viscerally descriptive of this phenomenon, which is a kind of crude oil volcano. True, it's being commonly called a "spill", but if we make "Deepwater Horizon oil spill" a redirect, we can be sure that anyone seeking information about the disaster under that name will find this article. I wouldn't presume to make the change myself, since this is not my field, but I wish that qualified persons would consider doing so. MdArtLover (talk) 03:38, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
This needs to be added. It will never be released to the public. NOAA has denied the existence of the plume, calling them an anomaly which could not be verified as oil. You will most likely not hear about this story again because it has been buried.

The government has attacked independent scientists on the issue. http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/business/deepwaterhorizon/7011584.html

In an escalation of the battle between the white house and the scientific community... an escalating war between the Obama administration and the scientific community

discovery news responded to the the attacks

With the weight of evidence that has so far been made public, Lubchenco’s statement smacks of hiding behind claims of incomplete data to obfuscate understanding of the true magnitude of this spill. This makes sense when oil companies hoping to salvage their image and prevent pesky scrutiny and regulations do it — their profit motive is clear. But what has NOAA have to gain from behaving this way?" http://news.discovery.com/earth/why-dont-we-know-how-big-the-gulf-oil-spill-is.html

After that response from discovery... the story was buried.I can only speculate because of threats from the government.

My not so unbiased recap of the controversy can be found here. http://blog.alexanderhiggins.com/2010/05/20/discovery-earth-smacks-noaa-engaging-gulf-oil-spill-coverup/

Alexhiggins732 (talk) 23:53, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. [3] 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)[reply]


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

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)[reply]

 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)[reply]

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 [4]
Gulf of Mexico oil spill 6,290 [5]
BP oil spill 2,620 [6]
Deepwater BP oil spill 18 [7]
"oil gusher" (with quotes) 859 "oil+gusher"&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=
oil gusher (no quotes) 4920 [8]
Gulf gusher 105 [9]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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) [reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Please do not side step the issue in an attempt to make yourself look correct. Your edits [10], [11] and [12] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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."
  • 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."
  • 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."
  • 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. "

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Pictures/Diagrams needed

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Actually, WP:PAYWALL says the opposite. Gabbe (talk) 12:28, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Thanks to all three of you! --Sarabseth (talk) 15:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You could put {{Subscription required}} in the id section of the citation template.Smallman12q (talk) 17:22, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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." [14] MdArtLover (talk) 02:34, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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. [1]

  1. ^ http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oil-spill/index.ssf/2010/05/bp_concedes_more_oil_spilling.html

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

Size of oil well

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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

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.

Erm, I'm noticing a lot of vulgarity in these comments. Many people could find these words and terms offensive. Venku Tur'Mukan (talk) 17:21, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

It's inappropriate to use the word "worst" in a Wikipedia article because the word means "most severe or serious." By what objective measure is one oil spill worse than another? It's possible a small spill in one locale may have a severe effect on one arguably important thing whereas a large mid-ocean spill may be deemed to be less serious by comparison. That's the opinion of a fellow who managed the native lands adjacent to the Exxon Valdez spill site a few years before the mishap. I am one of those who appreciate objective reporting. I also object to fear-mongering, hysteria and public clamor. //Don K. (talk) 07:21, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

 Done -- œ™ 01:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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


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! -- Ϫ 01:54, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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" [15] . 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)[reply]

I just removed "whether it reaches Gulf coast or not" from the lead. Thundermaker (talk) 17:38, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! MdArtLover (talk) 17:47, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
Now I see it; thank You for the remark. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.180.140.222 (talk) 03:51, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Request for feedback on an edit

This edit: cur | prev) 18:25, 21 May 2010 Aalox (talk | contribs) (111,631 bytes) (→Spill flow rate: Lets stay NPOV and resist the urge to just bash on BP. Nothing here puts BP in a positive light. It this is a horrible thing, but we don't need to make it darker then it is.) (undo

deleted these words: (The company has refused to allow scientists to perform accurate, independent measurements of the flow), claiming that it isn't relevant to the response and such efforts might distract from them.

Here is the quote from the article used as the reference:

BP has resisted entreaties from scientists that they be allowed to use sophisticated instruments at the ocean floor that would give a far more accurate picture of how much oil is really gushing from the well. “The answer is no to that,” a BP spokesman, Tom Mueller, said on Saturday. “We’re not going to take any extra efforts now to calculate flow there at this point. It’s not relevant to the response effort, and it might even detract from the response effort.”

However, according to this article http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/05/21-0

BP and the Obama administration have said they don't want to take the measurements for fear of interfering with efforts to stop the leaks. That decision, however, runs counter to BP's own regional plan for dealing with offshore leaks. "In the event of a significant release of oil," the 583-page plan says on Page 2, "an accurate estimation of the spill's total volume . . . is essential in providing preliminary data to plan and initiate cleanup operations."

And:

BP's estimate that only 5,000 barrels of oil are leaking daily from a well in the Gulf of Mexico, which the Obama administration hasn't disputed, could save the company millions of dollars in damages when the financial impact of the spill is resolved in court, legal experts say.

While I feel that Aalox makes a very good point and I know that it is always on my mind as I make my edits, in this case I feel s/he is not correct in his/her edit. This article needs to reflect the fact that most people no longer expect any honesty from BP officials whether it is about the amount of the spill or why they have, one month into the disaster, refused to allow an evaluation of the amount of the spill.

Thoughts? Gandydancer (talk) 23:38, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A few dates are missing...

I find that the oil spill rate section is slightly jumbled. Though the estimates are posted, the exact dates at which they are made are absent. The gravity of this situation will not be that obvious until the dates are pointed out.

Thus, will someone please put in the dates so we will know what was the estimate and how much the estimate is now. 96.246.251.187 (talk) 02:44, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Gulf oil spill

The president does refer to it as the BP oil spill. Alternately, most google traffic on my blog comes for "Gulf oil spill" which is also the most used title in the media and on social networking sites. Alexhiggins732 (talk) 23:15, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article should be named Gulf oil spill. That is the most used title in the media and most social networking sites. As far as the other comments about being much bigger than this, This one may be the big kahuna when its all said and done. We are already looking at 3.1 million barrels of oil using the most credible estimate available today which puts the flow rate at 100,000 bpd (70,000 bpd for main leak and 25,000 bpd for smaller leak) Alexhiggins732 (talk) 23:19, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Date discrepancy

"...spokesman Scott Dean said Friday, May 20, that BP had responded to the EPA directive with a letter ..." Friday was May 21. What day did this happen? Friday the 21st, or Thursday the 20th? Farfromunique (talk) 23:51, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where did it start?

I wonder are "in the United States" categories precise? It seems that Deepwater Horizon was located not on the U.S. territorial waters (12 nautical miles from the baseline) and not even in the contiguous zone, but much further on the open international waters of Mexican Gulf, within the U.S. exclusive economic zone. It may be one of "disasters in Louisiana" but the spill itself is rather international maritime incident. Cien (talk) 00:02, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very interesting point that has crossed my mind, too. I do a whole lot of work with Categories, so I'm going to give this question some serious thought. You might also want to raise this issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories and see what folks there think. Cgingold (talk) 05:44, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The U.S. exclusive economic zone, although at the same time international waters, is under the administration of the U.S. authorities. Also, the Macondo Prospect federal lease to the BP-led consortium was done by the U.S. administration. Therefore, "in the United States" categories are fully applicable. We have similar practice with all offshore oil and gas fields which are usually outside of exclusive economic zones, but categorized as "oilfields of country X" or something similar. Beagel (talk) 09:43, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting - does that mean other countries with economic risk might also have authority? Granted that operations would be expensive but may pay off in the long-run. Also how does BP have authority to restrict the area, especially that of the air? --66.223.168.45 (talk) 00:32, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed name change

Deepwater Horizon oil spill → BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill — I was already of the opinion that "BP" should be included in the name of the article - and now it's official: "BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill".

With the establishment of the National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling, I think we know with certainty the name that will go in the history books. So we may as well make the switch to the official name without delay.

I honestly can't imagine any serious objections to using this name, but for the sake of Wiki-procedure... now is the time to make your views known. Cgingold (talk) 05:38, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the interest of facilitating a clear-cut up-or-down decision on the name change I've proposed, I would like to request that we confine our remarks to the specified proposal and not consider any alternative names that various editors may favor. The only reason I went forward with this name-change proposal is purely because the US government has now bestowed an official name on this incident, not because I happen to agree that BP should be part of the name. (Sorry if I caused any inadvertent confusion on that point.) Cgingold (talk) 09:35, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE ADD ALL COMMENTS TO THE APPROPRIATE SUB-SECTION BELOW

Agree

  • I agree that this article should reflect the official name attributed to the incident. If other unofficial names are in common practice, they should be included, and follow the title in the "also know as format", with a redirect page in these names. This is my opinion of what would be proper.My76Strat (talk) 11:49, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Favor Can someone please ask voters if they work for BP? I can't believe the votes I am seeing. 75.166.179.110 (talk) 09:43, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree. I suspect that this will undergo several more name changes over the course of time, but the given reason seems sufficient to move the article now. I don't see any of the opposing votes engaging with the reasoning given in the move proposal. 187.143.14.132 (talk) 19:05, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree. The US goverment has indicatede BP is responsible for the Oil Spill/Blowout. BP has stated they will hold responsibility for the cleanup. Multiple Media sources are siting this as the BP Deepwater Horizon disaster. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WatchingDragon (talk • contribs) 19:53, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree

  • Oppose. The name is misleading because it suggests that Deepwater Horizon was owned by BP. This is not correct. In case of the Exxon Valdez oil spill, Exxon Valdez was the ship name. It was also discussed previously that 'blowout' is more correct term than 'oil spill'. I also think that the name should have a geographical indication. Therefore, my preferences are:
  1. Macondo blowout
  2. Macondo oil spill
  3. Deepwater Horizon oil spill (the current title)
  4. 2010 Gulf of Mexico blowout
  5. 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill

Beagel (talk) 08:59, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I propose: "Deepwater Horizon oil blowout". 'Blowout' is unclear without the modifying word 'oil' (just as in some above-suggested titles it's called an 'oil spill', never simply a 'spill'. 'Deepwater Horizon' is the unique name of the vessel destroyed in the incident, and is well-recognized by anyone who's heard even vaguely of the incident; therefore '2010' is unnecessary as a modifier, as is any reference to Macondo or the Gulf of Mexico. And calling it by the name of the vessel doesn't associate it with BP. The name of any company whatsoever is omitted - like 'Valdez' without 'Exxon'; therefore, Beagel's first objection is not really an issue. MdArtLover (talk) 13:59, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification. The ship name was Exxon Valdez, not just Valdez. The name of the rig is Deepwater Horizon, not BP Deepwater Horizon. Therefore, having fragment of the title as 'BP Deepwater Horizon' is misleading. So, there are options to use the rig name or BP in the title, but not in the way that 'Deepwater Horizon' follows directly 'BP'.Beagel (talk) 16:00, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As of suggestion by User:MarylandArtLover, I prefer Deepwater Horizon oil blowout compared to the current title.Beagel (talk) 16:18, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Oppose I think the current name strikes a good balance as a descriptive name. The media commonly, and the public in general, refer to the event as an oil spill... even if blowout might be more technically correct it really is a case of splitting hairs (in short I also Oppose Deepwater Horizon oil blowout) As noted by Andrewa, the rig's not BP Deepwater Horizon, nor is BP the only party involved. So to I have some NPOV issues with singling them out. Frankly, I thought we had this all resolved in the last name change dicussion.--Labattblueboy (talk) 19:05, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose per Labattblueboy. Kittybrewster ☎ 19:16, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This proposed name change adds "BP" to the current title. I oppose that; several companies were involved, BP being only the largest. However, I came to the talk page today to propose a name change. The phrase "oil spill" is no longer correct, and gives people the wrong impression about what is going on. According to the recent NearShore Surface Oil Forecast from NOAA [16] the size and scope of the situation in the gulf is no long just a "spill". Each square on that map is approximately 4900 square miles. Realistic estimates put the size at 10 times the Exxon Valdez now, and it's still flowing. The NOAA.gov page on deepwaterhorizon.noaa.gov now uses the phrase "Deepwater Horizon Incident, Gulf of Mexico". It's now clear the effects will be far larger than the Gulf, and with the addition of dispersants, and their toxic effects, the result will be far greater than just oil spilling. Unless something dramatic changes in the activities to stop the flow of oil, this will be the greatest environmental disaster in the US in a century. I'd suggest "Deepwater Horizon Oil Disaster, Gulf of Mexico", or something similar that removes the phrase "oil spill". Jmd2121 (talk) 22:17, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The current name is unambiguous and uncontroversially correct except for using the popular term "spill" instead of the industry jargon "blowout". For the record, I am not involved in the industry. Thundermaker (talk) 15:07, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The current name is factually accurate. As noted by others, the rig was neither owned nor operated by BP. The oil lease was BPs, but a contractor (Transocean) did the drilling. I would guess that the legal challenges for responsibility will play out in the courts for several years but our job in WP is not to try to outguess that process. I'll also note, for the record that I have no relationship to BP or Transocean or the US government whatsoever, whether by employment, contracting, stock ownership, etc., except that I do pay taxes to the US government. N2e (talk) 23:18, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Adding BP to the title sounds like a political move by the government (of which I am an employee in the DoD). Wikipedia need to be Neutral Point of View. The name of the company has never been included in an oil spill in the past. The only exception is the famous 1989 oil spill, and the Exxon corporation had the misfortune of naming their ship Exxon Valdez after their company and an Alasken port. Also BP does NOT own the Deepwater Horizon, Transocean does. - Aalox (Say Hello • My Work) 04:32, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree that current name is not O.K., but no need to add BP - everybody knows its BP. Something like Deepwater Horizon Gulf Oil Disaster would do better, with Gulf gusher added among the alternative names. Kokot.kokotisko (talk) 08:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vote Rigging?

Do any of these voters work for BP? 75.166.179.110 (talk) 09:43, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're an IP from Denver. Who do YOU work for? A rival of BP, perhaps? :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:20, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strictly speaking, it's impossible to rule out the possibility that one of these editors may be employed by BP. But in all honesty, that strikes me as highly unlikely. Every editor's complete edit history is open to view, and I believe all the registered editors were around before the current disaster began. Feel free to check out each of their edit histories if you wish. (I'm not particularly concerned and my time is limited.) Cgingold (talk) 12:22, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you search for "BP oil spill", it offers you the choice of the current one, or one from 2006, as a bonus. Way too much time is wasted on wikipedia debating the specific names of articles, especially for news items which may have multiple "common names", none of them "official". This one can easily be found if "BP" is the only thing you know about it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:19, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Not true. If you search "Gulf of Mexico Oil Disaster", this article doesn't show. And Wikipedia is almost always on page one of any search. "Deepwater Horizon" is not what most people are thinking about when they are thinking about the "Gulf of Mexico Oil Disaster."

It's like using "Felis Concolor" as the title for the Wikipedia page on "Mountain Lion".

"Felis Concolor" is the scientific name for a mountain lion, but no one is going to search for that.

In answer to the question about my affiliation--

I don't work for any energy or oil company of any sort.

About BP possibly trying to spin Wikipedia articles--

You don't think that BP, a multi-BILLION dollar company, wouldn't have a Wikipedia Public Relations team ready at all times, in case of an emergency like this?

Imagine having hundreds of millions of dollars for public relations--

Imagine being one of the most powerful companies in the world. BP has it's own private fire department for rig explosions, always ready for the next fire. You think they don't also have their own Public Relations Department, always at the ready too?

They could have been cultivating Wiki Private User Pages all along, just in case of a spill (the risk of spill always being present in the oil business). Their Public Relations team always ready with Wikipedia Private User Pages, just like a fire department. I'll bet a lot of big companies do it.

75.166.179.110 (talk) 16:50, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It appears you are trying to discredit people for having opinions different from your own, people that have been contributing to Wikipedia for much longer than you have on a breadth of issues far wider than just BP, or the energy industry in general. Please focus your energy on improving Wikipedia, rather than making inflammatory and unsupported accusations. TastyCakes (talk) 22:16, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and by my Google search, this article does show up as the 8th result for "gulf of mexico oil disaster", not surprisingly considering the amount of coverage from sources other than Wikipedia. TastyCakes (talk) 22:18, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If the soapboxing OP had bothered to check, he would have seen that the redirect page Gulf of Mexico oil disaster was added four days ago. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:42, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The closing admin (and it won't be me, I'm involved in the discussion... but no, I don't work for BP) will of course look at the arguments, not just count the votes. So I wouldn't get too worried, either way. If there's any reason to suspect that those voting are one-issue accounts or socks or both, there are ways to check, and we do when necessary. But I see no grounds for the allegations at all.
We should also assume good faith on the part of the IP raising the issues. It takes a while to learn the rules here (such as NPA, which doesn't say what most think it does). Andrewa (talk) 00:19, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, ranking eighth means almost off of page one and studies actually show that almost no one clicks below number five on Google and Yahoo search results.

On the issue of determining user-affiliations with BP, I have never accused any one of being a BP employee.

I have not accused-- I have asked-- and according to Wikipedia guidelines it is OK to ask about that.

Someone else said it wasn't likely that a company like BP would try to spin a Wikipedia article-- and I answered that GENERAL statement with good reasoning for why it's very likely a potential problem.

That was a general answer to a general statement, not a personal accusation.

Another point about BP (and oil companies in general)-- (As it pertains to Wikipedia neutrality)-- there is an investigation underway right now of Oil companies bribing Interior Department (Bureau of Minerals) inspectors. We are talking about lots of bribery and not just a little either. (You can find that in all the major media outlets).

So it is NOT soapboxing to be concerned that an industry that is being investigated for (very recently) allegedly bribing US government officials, could also be easily capable of spinning a potentially high-profile Wikipedia article.

Wikipedia forbids that kind of editing. So why can't we ask (generally) if that rule is being breached?

75.166.179.110 (talk) 23:25, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not that it is really relevant at all, but do you have a source on oil companies bribing US officials? The problem is you weren't asking "generally", you were asking because you didn't like the way the vote was turning out. Rather than taking a cursory look at the histories of who was voting against the move, you chose to accuse them of being BP puppets, not exactly showing good faith and not exactly a good way to get people on your side. TastyCakes (talk) 00:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article size and removal of relevant material as a result

Is anyone getting at all concerned with the article size. It currently stands at 117K, which a bit large. Any suggestions at cutting down the size a bit? --Labattblueboy (talk) 14:54, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it is somewhat big. But if it can no longer be cleaned up and whatnot (thus, all information possible is included), then it is what it is. Venku Tur'Mukan (talk) 17:27, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Notes for inline refs are certainly needed (though dated ones need updates), but bloat of redundant References and External links sections can certainly be culled, if not eliminated altogether. Also, a Timeline section or Infobox might be helpful. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 22:57, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If it is too big, then maybe it can be split. -- Wavelength (talk) 23:01, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Split or let the article grow is the right answer rather than deleting useful and helpful material. Labattblueboy removed relevant material with this edit saying that the article was too large in his edit summary. I made the edit that added the visual aids and think they are an important part of this complex story. Since I made the edit adding some of the information which was removed, I thought I'd ask folks here to weigh in on the removal of this material. I am open to the idea that maybe not all of the information in the references section needs to be there, but I believe strongly that the powerful visual and reference aids that are being produced by reputable sources to convey what is happening below the surface should be a part of this article. Theflyer (talk) 00:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Made Minor Fix

Changed "On May 1 two United States Department of Defense [...]" to "On May 1, two [...]" to make it seem better-structured. This okay? Also, keep your eye out for anything else like that. Confusion can cause a reread or two. Most readers probably don't like doing that. Venku Tur'Mukan (talk) 17:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mississippi Canyon 252 name removed, why?

My addition of Mississippi Canyon 252 to the list of names in the introduction was reverted by User:Labattblueboy because of the claim that the list of names was too long even though I'd cited an official NOAA document saying that this is what they call the spill (see page four of this this pdf). It would seem only reasonable to me that Wikipedia's list of names for the spill would include the official name given by NOAA. I request other editors to re-add this given that my edits were reverted. Theflyer (talk) 00:35, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mississippi Canyon 252 is a location, not an event name. No media, less one or two examples[17] have employed a name that includes Mississippi Canyon 252. None of the past name discussion have involved or considered the name Mississippi Canyon 252, so i see it highly unusual to list it as a common name. If we list every name that comes up, we will end up with a list at the start that extends far beyond something useful.--Labattblueboy (talk) 00:49, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the response. I can understand the logic even if not fully agreeing with the conclusion. I do see that the section "Deepwater Horizon" states "the platform was on Mississippi Canyon Block 252, referred to as the Macondo Prospect". Since the term is at least included in the narrative and linked to the Macondo Project, which is in the list of names, I can let this go. I did create a redirect for Mississippi Canyon Block 252 that will bring people to this article. Theflyer (talk) 01:08, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'Expression error: Unrecognised punctuation character ","' under Short-term efforts section

There's red error text in the third paragraph of Deepwater_Horizon_oil_spill#Short-term_efforts. I know it'll get fixed soon anyway, but hopefully pointing out will get it fixed sooner. Thanks. 174.55.189.19 (talk) 04:56, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Made a sloppy fix to it. Broke it into (1000) and (5000) instead of (1000-5000). - Aalox (Say Hello • My Work) 05:12, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great illustration in the Economist Magazine

Could somebody replicate the excellent graphic in the Economist Magazine and put it here?

http://media.economist.com/images/images-magazine/2010/21/ST/201021STC294.gif

from the article: http://www.economist.com/science-technology/displaystory.cfm?story_id=16160853

58.179.137.101 (talk) 05:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dispersants

We seem to be missing an article on Sea-Brat/Sea-Brat 4 ... and the Corexit article could do with expansion.

70.29.210.155 (talk) 12:06, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not much yet in truly substantive news sources on Sea-Brat yet -- almost all news mentions of Sea-Brat simply cite BP response to May 20 EPA directive. I'll try to work on it, after a few more pressing updates to Dispersants section and Corexit article, re: BP response & EPA counter-response to May 20 directive. Paulscrawl (talk) 16:44, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Litigation section - Smith Stag LLC

I have concerns that the Litigation section has been largely written by representatives Smith Stag LLC. The section, written largely by Pwendel66, almost exclusively quotes and mentions the partners in the firm (Michael Stag & Stuart Smith). I'm not sure if this is a case of someone rep'ing the company but nonetheless suggest the text be removed.--Labattblueboy (talk) 15:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. A mention is fine, but this is ridiculous. Gandydancer (talk) 17:04, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to summarize and trim this section, but further work is needed. Beagel (talk) 17:06, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from Arnegrim, 25 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} The first sentence of the 3rd paragraph states 'The spill has eclipsed the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill as the worst US oil disaster in history'. None of the articles posted to support that claim make such a definitive statement.

Sentence should read 'The spill is expected to eclipse the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill as the worst US oil disaster in history'. Arnegrim (talk) 15:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not completely uncontroversial. The only way it hasn't already become the largest disaster is if the low-end estimate is correct (5000 bbl/day). It has been 35 days, so if the actual rate is 7,142 bbl/day or greater, it's the largest.
Also, the word "worst" seems to insert unnecessary POV. Damage is not strictly a function of oil volume but also currents and response.
Let's try to get a consensus. Thundermaker (talk) 16:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The article states 'could'. It very well may be larger already, but without a definitive determination it would be irresponsible to make such claims.Arnegrim (talk) 16:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely with Arnegrim. The references given appear to me to say "expected to within a few weeks", "could" and so on, none of them seem to say "it's now the biggest oil spill in US history". It's not Wikipedia's job to extrapolate from oil rates mentioned in news (that falls under original research), so we need to find a reliable source that says it's now the largest spill in US history or change the wording to "expected to be" or "may be". I also think "largest US oil disaster" should be changed to "largest US oil spill" for obvious neutrality reasons. TastyCakes (talk) 16:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How about if the wording were changed to, "According to many independent experts, the spill has...", since by most estimates it has now exceeded the Exxon Valdez spill? Gandydancer (talk) 17:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's my point though: although there are articles from a while ago saying "it will become the biggest spill in the next few weeks", I haven't seen any that say "it is now the biggest". I might be wrong of course, please correct me if so. That said, I have changed the line to "The spill is thought to have eclipsed the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill as the largest in US history" which I think is an accurate and unbiased statement... TastyCakes (talk) 17:20, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My beef was with the use of worst, given the longterm effects remain largely uncertain. I like the current edit of "The spill is thought to have eclipsed the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill as the largest in US history." I would also accept "expected" instead of "thought to have".--Labattblueboy (talk) 17:45, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, it doesn't seem like anyone has demonstrated that it is "worse" than the Valdez at this point, even if it is bigger. TastyCakes (talk) 17:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I found [18] which quotes a White House official as calling it "worst", then the article suggests it's due to location. I'm not sure that helps but I thought I'd post it. Thundermaker (talk) 17:56, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm I see, that seems a little confusing since the Valdez was much closer to shore than the Deepwater Horizon... Presumably they mean the location is worse because it's closer to a lot of economic activity than the Valdez was. I don't think environmentally it has been shown to be worse than the Valdez was yet, at least not on shore... TastyCakes (talk) 18:25, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Percentage of Gulf closed to fishing

I know fisherman are liars, but I thought the National Marine Fisheries Service could do better than this fishy percentage comparison:

"The closure measures 45,728 sq mi (118,435 sq km), which is approximately 19 percent of the Gulf of Mexico exclusive economic zone." "FB10-040: BP Oil Spill: NOAA Modifies Commercial and Recreational Fishing Closure in the Oil-Affected Portions of the Gulf of Mexico" NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Regional Office, Southeast Fishery Bulletin. May 18, 2010. http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/bulletins/pdfs/2010/FB10-040_BP_Oil_Spill_Closure_051810.pdf

vs.

"The closure measures 54,096 sq mi (140,109 sq km), which is slightly more than 22% of the Gulf of Mexico exclusive economic zone." "FB10-045: BP Oil Spill: NOAA Modifies Commercial and Recreational Fishing Closure in the Oil-Affected Portions of the Gulf of Mexico" NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Regional Office, Southeast Fishery Bulletin. May 25, 2010. http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/bulletins/pdfs/2010/FB10-045_BP_Oil_Spill_Closure_052510.pdf

At least one of those percentage estimates must be wrong. What is the exact size of the Gulf of Mexico's share in the US Exclusive Economic Zone?

Paulscrawl (talk) 22:26, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some interesting video

Someone at my forum posted this from the video - I had no idea that these explosions were going on. How on earth can they ever get this beast plugged up? http://monkeyfister.blogspot.com/2010/05/major-change-down-below.html Gandydancer (talk) 22:35, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing and citations

I think it's about time we talked about taking a standarized approach to referencing. Having some citations in the notes and some in the reference section is unmanageable in identifying unused references. My suggestion is that we employ only inline notes, as that makes up the majority of the references present. Thoughts? --Labattblueboy (talk) 00:31, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Deepwater_Horizon_oil_spill&oldid=364214282"