Talk:Deepwater Horizon oil spill

Splitting the article

It is getting rather big. Perhaps the "Consequences" section could be split off. Suggestions? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:51, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Also "Efforts to stem the flow of oil" could be split off (and "Considerations of using explosives" subsection removed in whole). Beagel (talk) 22:26, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I made the "Efforts to stem the flow of oil" section into its own article and I also eliminated the "Consideration of using explosives" subsection completely. GVnayR (talk) 22:55, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree with "Efforts" split, but Disagree with "explosives" subsection deletion. --Lexein (talk) 03:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree with "Consequences" split, but Disagree with "explosives" subsection deletion. Not sure about "Efforts" split, as this is a relatively small section, although I suppose it will grow. Disagree about timing of split--I think that more time should be given for editor feedback before doing a split-- JTSchreiber (talk) 04:59, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Since more people disagreed than agreed, I decided to restore the "explosives" subsection. GVnayR (talk) 15:10, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Right now we have a separate article which is almost identical to the section in this article. When the separate article is split, the section in this article should only summarize the subject and include only the most important information. I think this is Ok to restore the explosive section in the separate article, but it will be enough to have just one sentence in this article, not a separate subsection. Beagel (talk) 18:32, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I have reduced the explosives section on this article to two sentences. GVnayR (talk) 20:18, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Beagel (although that should go without saying) and Anna Frodesiak's suggestion is also what i just had in mind as i glanced the article and came here to suggest a split.Lihaas (talk) 11:24, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's been a week, so most have had a chance to weigh in. No rush, but it looks like consensus. Further thoughts? Suggestions? How about the name? Consequences of Deepwater Horizon oil spill? Consequences of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill? (the latter is blue because it's a redirect) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:18, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Well it already exists so lets un-redirect it and use the page.(Lihaas (talk) 09:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Good plan. We could put it in the list of page moves, or bug an admin. Let's bug an admin. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:24, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

We also have Economic and political consequences of the Deepwater Horizon disaster, so we should consider if it remains as a separate article or should be merged into the new Consequences of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill article. Beagel (talk) 17:19, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Good point. I've added { { main|Economic and political consequences of the Deepwater Horizon disaster } } beneath section heading: Deepwater Horizon oil spill#Other economic consequences, but it might be better beneath section heading: Deepwater Horizon oil spill#Consequences as it is about both economic and political consequences.

I suggest moving the consequences section and then worrying about a possible merge. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:16, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Acre-feet

I believe it would be appropriate to also cite the volume of oil as acre-feet. I calculate as follows: Average spill per day = (35000 + 60000)/2 = 47500 bbl/day. 47500 x 42 = 1995000 gal/day. This is a bit more than 6.12 acre-feet/day. That is, per day this spill would cover an acre more than 6 feet deep. Assuming the average rate prevailed over 86 days, there would be something like 526.5 acre-feet total, enough to cover a square mile more than 0.8 feet deep in the stuff. Even assuming the minimum estimate, 30,000 bbl/day, there would be 332.5 acre-feet total, enough to cover a square mile a half-foot deep. This way of presenting the information might make the disaster more palpable to some people. Too Old (talk) 21:33, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmm acre-feet is quite often used in the oil industry, but generally not to measure amounts of oil out of the ground. I think it's more used to measure either rock volumes or the amount of oil originally in the ground. Maybe it would be of use to people to visualize the quantity of oil involved, but figured I should point out it's kind of an unusual unit to use in this context. TastyCakes (talk) 21:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe thats why its unusual to use in this manner - it is visually effective and understandable in perceiving the amount of oil that is now circulating about the Gulf.BGinOC (talk)

If you're suggesting there's a conscious effort not to use acre-feet in the description of oil spill volumes because it's just too good of a unit, I'm afraid I must disagree. But if others think it's a useful metric, maybe it has a place here. TastyCakes (talk) 15:14, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll try to include acre-foot measures where appropriate if others agree. Vote? Too Old (talk) 20:09, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

On second thought, I think I'll do it anyway. I just noticed that, on June 20, BP internally estimated up to 100,000 bbl/day - that's 12.89 acre-feet/day! Too Old (talk) 20:17, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I strongly oppose this. First of all, as TastyCake mentioned this unit is not usually used for oil out of ground. Secondly, we already have three different units: oil barrels (which is standard for the oil industry), US gallons (which is understandable for most of Americans) and cubic meters (preferred by people from countries using SI units). Adding one more unit makes the text less readable and e.g. Europeans acre-feet says nothing. For third, acre-feet is no SI unit.

I suppose hectare-meters (1 ha-m = 10000 cubic meters) might satisfy you? 100,000 bbl/day = 16,000 cu m/day = 1.6 ha-m/day, enough to cover a hectare about 160 cm deep in one day. Drowning depth for many non-swimmers. It certainly is easier to visualize, don't you think? I doubt if BP would like one to visualize. BTW, the acre-foot is commonly used in the US when characterizing the waters of a river or lake, or quantities in water treaties between states. It is not normally used about petroleum because it would be very unusual to have enough petroleum to be able to use it. Usually. Too Old (talk) 01:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC) Like stating the size of a room in miles.Too Old (talk) 03:24, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I did it. Hope it doesn't upset too many. At least those who sign their comments. Too Old (talk) 03:24, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Or how about the simplest question of all: Just what do 4,000,000 42-gallon containers look like anyway? At typical barrel height:width ratios, if we still used barrels the spill would require a 1 square kilometer warehouse to store. That's 250 acres (2/5 sq mi). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 07:44, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Using acre-feet for oil out of the ground goes against the basic principle of imperial and US customary measurements, which is to create weird units of measure for each and every conceivable trade and occupation, so as to create a barrier to entry to that trade or occupation. Since the basic principle of imperial and US customary measurements is directly opposed to the principle of Wikipedia, which is to make knowledge readily available to everyone, gratuitous and unnecessary conversions to imperial and US customary measurements should be avoided. Jc3s5h (talk) 11:47, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

You sure have a low opinion of imperial units. You might've gotten this impression from once seeing a chart that has LENGTH: peppercorn (unit), barleycorn (unit), finger (unit), digit (unit), palm (unit), hand (unit), span (unit), cubit, ell, fathom, rod (unit), chain (unit), furlong, league (unit), nautical league; WEIGHT:... but nobody uses these IRL anymore (unless they follow horse racing, (8 f/mile)). There are only few units left - which aren't sufficiently many to make having to remembering them all cause knowledge to be less readily available than to a public who has to grow up learning metric. Sometimes they go too far (like how can you not have a well-known measure below ounce and inch?) but Americans are stupid and unscientific aren't we? Oh, and I'm not sure if many Americans knew how many gallons an oil barrel is or if they remember from somewhere "it's 40-something" (I thought it was 46 for so long!), but they kindof know how big a physical barrel is and at these inhuman scales, that's good enough. (And oil is the only barrel cared about all because that's what the price is in everytime they give the dang price of oil) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:27, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Have I got this right: you're asserting that "the basic principle of using imperial or US customary measurements, which is to create weird units of measure... so as to create a barrier to entry"? I thought the basic principle of them was to standardise units of measure into those that everyone can agree on. Do you mean that using acre-feet for oil out of the ground goes against the basic principle by creating weird units of measure?

You then go on to say "the basic principle of imperial and US customary measurements is directly opposed to the principle of Wikipedia, which is to make knowledge readily available to everyone". I don't see how using standard units of measure that everyone can be taught or look up is against that principle; it would seem to me that using ad-hoc units of measure is more likely make knowledge less readily available.

Perhaps I have completely misunderstood what you mean, but that it seems to me is what you say.

I agree that unnecessary conversions to obscure or inappropriate units of measure should be avoided, and it seems to me here that acre-feet, while not particularly obscure, is inappropriate, since the oil is not characterized by covering a surface to a particular, roughly uniform, depth. Barrels of oil, or billion barrels of oil, would seem a more appropriate derived unit of standard measure (the US gallon). Si Trew (talk) 07:49, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with most of what you said but an acre-foot is not a specific, flat shape but a unit of volume just like a cubic meter doesn't have to be a cube. It's used because gallon and even cubic foot/yard would be too small (for things dealing with outdoors water), and a square mile is too large to picture all at once (i.e, it'd be extremely flat unless the resultant unit was huge). Since acre-feet is used in petroleum reservoir measurement, using it isn't that wrong, it's just reservoir that's been moved. If some editors want to see smaller numbers, the industry standard M bbl and MM bbl have the even worse problems of pseudo-SI ness causing confusion, obscurity, and being very unvisualizable (M and mille millesMM just essentially converting back into large numbers of the very same unit we tried to provide an alternative for. Might I suggest turning all references to millions into the word million, abbreviating all unit names after their first appearances (i.e. gal, m³ and bbl) and generally making this converted unit stuff as short as possible? Maybe we could then squeeze acre-ft in. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:27, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I doubt that there is one person in 20 who knows how many acres in a square mile, so putting it in acre-feet would be useless to the general reader. If we want to illustrate volume in terms of thickness x area, why don't we just choose an appropriate thickness (say, an inch, or a cm) and say how many mi2 or km2 the spilled volume would cover. Plazak (talk) 13:09, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

That would be useful to those who don't have a concept of an acre (~2/3 of a football field by the way). (I'm very familiar with the acre because 200 ft is the widest a square building can be on a New York City standard block) Using square mile-inches though would introduce a (while technically correct) even less used unit that doesn't seem to appear non-trivially on Google. And, as I said before sq mi-inches are very thin and profile shapes as thin as 6 square mile-inches "wastes depth" by forcing you to imagine a larger surface area than is necessary. I am perfectly capable of imagining oil either 1 foot deep or 1 inch thick but 4 miles away on the horizon doesn't seem that different to me from 1 mile away, but enclosing a much differenter area. But (if larger than human scale) thick profile volumes have diminishing returns on the mind to fully appreciate what is there. So acre feet is a good size for visualization as an acre balances "large enough that foreshortening makes not being able to truly see your area" and "you want the largest area possible or the numbers will get big, this is a huge spill") at human scale (of standing up, eye height); you can kick it around and it sloshes but isn't like a mere inch or centimeter thin, or deep enough that you have to swim in it and lose your intuit connection to the full gravity of the depth (of oil, that is). Damn, I sound like a woman.. So 448 of those things.. or whatever it finally turns out to be. As far as you can judge area well times as far as you can judge area well times a foot, then times ~half a thousand - taking everyday experience to the very limit just to find something large enough to hold the oil. This is what is said to the acre-familiar user when he reads "526 acre-feet".

Also, I like the x million literal barrels laid out side to side idea but this one works too. I might make a diagram. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:27, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

If it were one inch thick, it would be about 6 square miles in extent, assuming none of it was recovered, burned, evaporated, degraded or landed, and it went on for 86 days at 40,000 bbl/day.DonSiano (talk) 18:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

In the context of comparing to the actual square milage of the spill 150 square mile-millimeters and 1,500 square mile-sheets of paper does help me (visualize), but this is even more weirderer of units. The amount spilled could be larger of course, if the previous estimate treadmill told us anything. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:27, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I realise the source of my confusion with User:Jc3s5h's argument; without saying so it was to say that any measurement that is not SI is unacceptable. Forgive me for my confusion but I thought we were discussing whether acre-feet are acceptable, not whether the entire English Wikipedia should be stripped of imperial or US customary measures. Forgive me for being led up a blind alley; though I still say in my opinion acre-feet in particular are inappropriate and that bbl (billion barrels of oil) would probably be the most appropriate. Si Trew (talk) 20:37, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

bbl means just 1 barrel. bl is hay bale. US is stupid, huh? And besides, we can't use no imperial/US at all, a huge portion of WP-EN readers use imperial or US. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:24, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I just was trying to use a measure that would be easier to visualize. I see that acre-feet is not readily visualized by some (most?) people. OK. The article says that there might have been as much as 180,000,000 gallons total spill, which I calculated to be about 552 acre-feet. One could also say 0.68 cubic kilometers, or 680,000 cubic meters. That would cover a hectare to a depth of 68 meters! If that measure, 68 hectare-meters is easier to visualize than 180,000,000 gallons or 552 acre-feet, use that, by all means. (1 cubic meter is a bit more than 264 gallons; a hectare-meter would be 10,000 cubic meters.) Too Old (talk) 09:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• Against Previous discussion affirmed the principal unit of measure as bbl and US gallons, with metric as the third to satisfy a global audiance. A fourth unit of measure is not necessary. I have not see a single media report with acre-feet in it... not one, and its certainly not a common public unit of measure. --Labattblueboy (talk) 15:21, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• Against Acre-feet measures should be omitted. Three measures of volume are enough. If someone wants to convert to another measure, conversion calculators are easy to find and use. Adding acre-feet just makes the article harder to read, whithout adding a thing. Take it out!DonSiano (talk) 16:05, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Putting it in hay bales seems like an excellent idea, except then we would have to discuss loosely packed or tight; hay, straw, or pasture mix?; old-fashioned or the big new-fangled round?; and so on. Seems that could start many long Wikipedia arguments. So, perhaps just best to leave it as it is. Gandydancer (talk) 16:21, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose The article is so far away from the guidelines for units of measurement contained in wp:mosnum that it beggars belief. I was going to hold fire until the well was effectively capped and things had well and truly calmed down before commenting. Adding a third customary unit of measure is ridiculous makes the text and tables extraordinarily difficult to read. In the end, the text should show the following for measurements; either bbls or us gallons (but not both and no acre.feet) and then a suitable metric conversion for the value. For each context (flow rate or total volume) one prime unit should be chosen for consistency throughout the article (and the sub articles as well). Conversion factors from the chosen prime customary unit and other customary units contained in reference sources should be stated in each article's footnotes to allow readers to readily verify converted values included in text. Ideally, if a lot of conversions need to be done, then the prime unit may as well be a metric one and choose a customary unit to convert to. The article, as it currently reads is well below the standard expected of a high-profile WP article. We don't need to show every unit we can think of to help a reader visualise a particular measurement. Even the experts had lots of problems with the visualisation. It won't be fixed by stuffing in more conversions. Simplify and make the article(s) easier to read. Bleakcomb (talk) 08:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, drop the acre-feet idea. So, how much is a barrel? What most Americans think of is a "55 gallon" steel drum (presumably US gallons). But a barrel of petroleum is 42 US gallons, or not quite 35 Imperial gallons. The US gallon is exactly 3,785.411784 cc; the Imperial gallon is exactly 4,546.09 cc. (http://ts.nist.gov/WeightsAndMeasures/Publications/upload/AppendC-09-HB44-FINAL.pdf) The pertroleum barrel is exactly 158,987.294928 cc. Divide each by 1,000 to get liters, or 1,000,000 to get cubic meters, and round to two significant digits (all that is justified). So your proposal to specify either barrels or gallons would be ambiguous, and would not be improved by conversion factors in a footnote. You would still have units that most humans would have difficulty envisioning. Would that make the article 'easier to read'? Too Old (talk) 07:22, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand when you say choosing one prime customary unit would be ambiguous. My main point is that there are way too many figures and pointless conversions going on, particularly in Deepwater Horizon oil spill#Spill flow rate. Such as BP estimated the worst case flow at 162,000 barrels (6,800,000 US gallons; 25,800 cubic metres). This should be BP estimated the worst case flow at 162,000 barrels (25,800 m³) or BP estimated the worst case flow at 6,800,000 US gallons (26,000 m³). Choose one. The other customary unit is redundant. That makes the article easier to read. The previous addition of acre.feet only made this worse. Note that abbreviations and symbols for unit names should be used in converted units. Note also the rounding errors.

How does including more figures make a value easier to "envision"? The volumes themselves are hard to visualise for most people, even the guessers experts; no matter which unit is used. More conversions are not going to help. What most people will gain from simple consistent units is the ability to compare. 10,000 barrels is a lot - 5,000 barrels is half that and 10 barrels is probably not that much at all. Converting to gallons will only confirm that already stated; a lot - half that and not that much at all. Who in the general readership forms a valid, immediate mental image of 6,800,000 gallons? Why include it?

Are you trying to say that oil barrels are not well understood? If so, we should consider not using them as the prime unit. The number of sources using oil barrels as the unit of measure may override this consideration, as I think it has in previous discussions. A footnote describing an oil barrel with conversion factors would be useful. A sidebar, perhaps, when things calm down, visualising some key or representative large values may help. But this effort should not occur at every stated measurement in the text, otherwise the text becomes illegible.

An aside. I recall as a student of a particular Economics teacher in high school that he would restate almost every percentage figure in at least two other equivalent yet redundant fractions (more if we had Economics before lunch). Thus "..prices have increased 5 percent, that's one twentieth or five one hundredths...". He was mocked cruelly behind his back. I would not wish the same for this article. ;-) Bleakcomb (talk) 00:52, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, you've convinced me. (Although my point about ambiguity was that not everyone will agree about the size of a 'barrel', nor will everyone agree on the size of a 'gallon'.) So use the units 'bbl' and 'm³' and state in a sidebar that a m³ is approximately 6.3 bbl (which is off by about a liter and a half) and round all quantities to two or 3 (preferably 2) significant digits. Too Old (talk) 05:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Media Blackout

Why is there no mention of how BP has allegedly paid off police forces and whatnot in the Gulf area so stop people, both private citizens and the media, from taking photos of the spill and clean-up efforts?

CybergothiChé (talk) 01:49, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Source? TastyCakes (talk) 15:15, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Who needs a source to make up paranoid crap? 88.105.29.24 (talk) 19:19, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Media blackout? Not really, you can observe from the sidelines, you just cannot charter craft to enter the affected area. Why? There is too much traffic on the sea and in the air to be safe, entering the area puts the responders at greater risk. Forget aircraft, there are a fleet of sprayers flying just feet off the surface. The ATC's working do not need to increase their workload for non-essential traffic. Nearly every vessel also had a helideck and these are essential to the operation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.177.134.125 (talk) 19:50, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, yes, you are quite correct, one does not need a source to make up paranoid crap, but, however, I do have sources, such as :

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/ybenjamin/detail??blogid=150&entry_id=65649

http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oil-spill/index.ssf/2010/06/barriers_to_news_coverage_of_g.html

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/06/bp-hires-mercs-to-block-oily-beaches/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter#ixzz0qvQN3iIg

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_ts2612

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=6496749n

CybergothiChé (talk) 21:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Trying to reduce the visibility of an unpopular event is natural behavior for a company in the public eye. Setting up a bird rescue center is the right thing to do, and doing it with private money gives them some right to keep that part of the cleanup private. Boat traffic exacerbates the core problem by spreading the spill. Calling all this a "media blackout" would be POV, I think. But I do agree it merits coverage, perhaps a section called "Media access" which documents these difficulties would be the way to go. Thundermaker (talk) 17:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Oil spill over?

With the new cap install and, at least temporary, stop in flow at 3pm yesterday, are we prepared to call the spill over?[1][2] --Labattblueboy (talk) 17:26, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's over when the mess is cleaned up, I suppose. ≡ CUSH ≡ 17:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

So why does the article say "Deepwater [...] WAS an oil spill"? I don't like that one bit. It very much still is an oil spill. / Something something user I don't care —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.248.93.150 (talk) 04:48, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Either way, changing "is" to "was" in this edit was a major change and should have been discussed first. If this has been covered in the archives, forgive me, but I couldn't find it.

So, the big question must be: is "oil spill" a noun or a verb when it comes to this article? (Okay, that doesn't exactly make sense, but I think you get my drift. Is the subject about the oil spilling out, or the oil that spilled out?) New stories like this refer to it as a noun that is still present.

Maybe this should be reverted until consensus is reached. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:56, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

This is just outrageous. Thanks for pointing out the edit Anna. Makes wikipedians look like a bunch of dopes. I hope someone can find the time to revert this edit. If not, I will when I have time. Gandydancer (talk) 01:47, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Gandydancer. I'm not sure which way is right. Personally, I don't care. But, considering that there is a big difference in public perception whether something is happening now, or pushed into the past, I think the article should get it right. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:25, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• The leak is sealed for now but the spill is still there and it is not expected to disappear by itself overnight). It's that simple and verifiable.TMCk (talk) 14:37, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks like Anna fixed it. Thanks Anna! Gandydancer (talk) 23:09, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Is 'Oil Spill' an Accurate Name for this Event?

Sine the nature of this accident isn't a spill, as in a defined amount of fluid substance accidentally falling out of some kind of container, I am wondering what a more logical name for this article would be. It would seem something like 'Deepwater Horizon Oil Disaster' or 'Disaster' would be more descriptive, or at least less misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Biry0501 (talk • contribs) 19:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

'Oil spill' is more descriptive. Google reports 83 million hits for "Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill" for 2 million hits for "Deepwater Horizon Oil Disaster", it would seem everybody refers to it as an oil spill. I support keeping the current name. Darrell_Greenwood (talk) 19:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

But I wonder if references like Wikipedia using a misleading name only perpetuates a common misconception by using this misnomer. Shouldn't a reference cite like Wikipedia aim to educate the 83 million that may be misled as to the nature of this disaster? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Biry0501 (talk • contribs) 05:46, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

"Spill" is more descriptive that "Disaster", not to mention more objective. These names are shaped by the media and public opinion over time, not one person's agenda. Relax... this ecological catastrophe isn't going to get whitewashed any time soon. - JeffJonez (talk) 11:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Even today, I see the media are still calling it a "spill". The difference here, apparently, is that it's "spilling" upwards. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:44, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you can argue that calling this a spill is more descriptive than a disaster or that it is somehow more objective. Actually, if anything, there seems to be more of an agenda in using an incorrect noun participle, than a more accurate one. I also challenge the assertion that because the media says something enough times, that makes it correct. I am not saying disaster is the only word; just this simply is not a spill. That is an incorrect term, no matter how many times it is said.

English language is the only to call this a spill, see the lemmas used for other language versions of this article. Would be interesting to find out who coined the term. It's definitely more friendly to the oil business than it is to those affected by the environmental consequences. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.38.192.210 (talk) 15:25, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

That is interesting. I noticed in German it is an oil pest (as in pollution disaster), the Swedes, Norwegians, and Danes are calling it an 'out-pour', and in Italian, it is a disaster. I wonder what is motivating us to use such an inaccurate word like 'spill'. I think Wikipedia should be better than the rest of the media.

Link to the previous discussion about this topic: Talk:Deepwater Horizon oil spill/Archive 7#It is a Leak, not a Spill

Relevant info from earlier discussion: Bob Dudley of BP has said: "This is not a spill – it's an ongoing leak".[3] Although more people search the term "spill" when searching Google, Wikipedia should be the place they are corrected. Anyway, whether you search leak or spill, you will still see this webpage at the top of your search. 174.74.2.72 (talk) 02:52, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

The British tend to call it an oil slick. I like that. --Jerome Potts (talk) 05:54, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

The word "slick" hardly references the underwater oil plumes where the majority of the BP oil is located, slick refers to the oil you can see, like in the recent China spill -

Researchers confirm subsea Gulf oil plumes are from BP well [[4]] 174.74.2.72 (talk) 00:37, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Bias

We can clearly see by the editing of this article that it is entirely written in a pro-British and anti-American perspective. I wonder how much B.P. had to pay a few people from the UK to gloss over and spin the facts here? Not to mention it is written in British English instead of American English. I think that a tag needs to be placed at the top of this article warning readers that it is imbalanced and bias towards a British perspective. That way, everybody will know not to take this article as factually accurate or credible.Yoganate79 (talk) 01:24, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

-- Here here, as they say in the Queen's English. British Petroleum's public relations department, and their agency, Burson Marsteller, must be congratulated for the degree to which they have committed to keeping "BP" out of the headline or any subheading in this article. They have earned every penny! A great success! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.248.180.183 (talk) 04:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia bears some responsibility for this. They should expect that an article like this would be spun and manipulated, and have a special task force to "drop in" to articles like this to prevent corporate spinning and domination of such articles. Such gamesmanship only makes BP look worse though. It doesn't fool anyone.

I hope this article is not pro-British or pro-American and definitely not anti-British or anti-American but it is neutral. And I really hope that every bit of information added to this article is verified by reliable sources. Please be more precise what information in this article does not follow these principles. Claims about the article is being biased without giving any facts is not very productive. Beagel (talk) 17:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

That is what we all hope, but a small amount of digging and you will find that Wikipedia is well known to be run by "power editors", some of whom are working for interest groups. There is absolutely no one overseeing neutrality. You have to do that yourself, and you have to know how to play the game here, which is grueling. It is no surprise that this article would have the attention of the same group who photoshop BP material ~ they spin wherever possible trying to save a sinking ship. Do not doubt they are in here editing away. 174.74.2.72 (talk) 03:03, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

See "Tricky Wiki: How Public Relations Companies Try to Spin Wikipedia" [[5]] 174.74.2.72 (talk) 03:26, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

What does one expect from the filthy British? I see no mentioning whatsoever in this article about British Petroleum lobbying to have the Lockerbie bomber released and to make a quick oil deal with Libya. I think we can safely write this article off as not credible or factual due to the recent spin by the UK of pinning this mess that they created on the shoulders of Americans. Of course, we are seeing a whole section dedicated to "Crisicism of America" but do we see a section dedicated to a rebuttal? I think not.Yoganate79 (talk) 18:42, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Please explain what the Lockerbie bomber release has to do with the oil spill? Also, I would like to ask you to remove the national insult you made above. Please also explain more precisely what is POV in this article and, if possible, tag the specific section, not the whole article. Without more detailed explanation the tag will be removed. Beagel (talk) 19:26, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

You will not remove the tag because I will put it back up where it was. And I will not remove any "national insult". The world would be a lot better of a place if every Brit got infected and died from AIDS. But that is besides the point.

The section on "Criticism of Amrerica' is unwarranted, one-sided, and a half attempt to divert responsibility away from British Petroleum. Also, the Lockerbie bomber hs everything to do with this oil spill since we are seeing everything come to light in the U.S. Senate inquiry not to mention accusations by President Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton. By that same assumption, I ask, what the fuck does Union Carbide have to do with the B.P. ooil spill Obviously an editor had no qualms about including that in it's "criticism of America."Yoganate79 (talk) 19:36, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

In addition to being biased, the "Criticism of Amrerica" was in the wrong article. I moved the section to the "Reactions to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill" article, since that's the article for more detailed descriptions of reactions. I will work on removing the bias from the section there, but may not finish today.

And Yoganate79, please watch your language per WP:CIVIL. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 21:02, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Multiple Leaks

Are there further credible sources that report that there are two additional oil leaks near the wellhead? I saw this story on examiner.com, but that's not quite the level of credibility we need. - 76.106.44.10 (talk) 17:54, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

This is interesting ~ Top Expert: There Were No Natural Seeps Within 3 Kilometers of Blown Out Well [[6]] 174.74.2.72 (talk) 00:42, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

There are 2 wells in the area both owned by BP, we the public have only been told about one.

Here is a link to the initial Exploration plan for Mississippi Canyon Block 252

I cant remember my login, but this is my account.87.48.103.195 (talk) 12:37, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Grammatical error in "Criticism of America" section

The last two sentences of the "Criticism of America" section presently read:

He then said "it’s a bit rich for a nation that has the biggest lobbying industry in the world, that regularly waters down legislation and strong arms other nations into buying American, to be questioning the motive of others." Also asking why Chevron Texaco, which is apparently on the hook for $27 billion, for dumping 56 billon litres of toxic waste in the Ecuadorian Amazon.

The last sentence is grammatically incorrect, to the point that its meaning could be misinterpreted. After reading the linked Al Jazeera article I was tempted to modify the sentence myself, but thought it more prudent to just comment here and leave it to the discretion of one of the editors more informed on the subject. The two problems I see are:

1. possibly it should all be 1 sentence e.g. ...questioning the motive of others.", also asking why...
2. the last part still doesn't make sense grammatically: "...asking why Texaco Chevron (who is apparently on the hook... for dumping...)" ...did what? Otherwise the "why" should possibly just be something more ambiguous - like "about"?

--Donkeydonkeydonkeydonkey (talk) 15:47, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

This section has since been moved to the Reactions_to_the_Deepwater_Horizon_oil_spill article, and been renamed twice, and edited massively, effectively removing the material I was commenting on. So ignore this comment now, please. --Donkeydonkeydonkeydonkey (talk) 16:12, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

BP spin doctors "photoshop" pictures

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/oil/7904221/BP-admits-it-Photoshopped-official-images-as-oil-spill-cut-and-paste-row-escalates.html

The oil giant was forced to issue new guidelines to staff to “refrain from doing (sic) cutting-and-pasting” after several official company images were found to have been doctored.

BP admitted on Thursday that it “Photoshopped” some of its official images that were posted on its website and vowed to stop the embarrassing practice. 71.184.184.238 (talk) 16:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

A WHALE super skimmer ineffective due to dispersant use

"BP's use of chemical dispersants prevented A Whale, billed as the world's largest skimmer, from collecting a "significant amount" of oil during a week of testing that ended Friday.

"When dispersants are used in high volume virtually from the point that oil leaves the well, it presents real challenges for high-volume skimming," [[7]] 174.74.2.72 (talk) 03:11, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Researchers confirm subsea Gulf oil plumes are from BP well

Researchers confirm subsea Gulf oil plumes are from BP well [[8]] 174.74.2.72 (talk) 00:39, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

This probably needs to be addressed:

Deep sea plume in Gulf 'changes concept' of an oil spill [[9]]

University of South Florida researchers said they confirmed that the invisible plumes they detected in May, 50 miles from the well, near the DeSoto Canyon that ferries nutrient-rich deep-sea water to Florida's western shore, did indeed come from the BP spill site.

And a new government report unveiled signs of what may be substantially higher concentrations of dispersed oil closer to the well.

USF's finding "changes this whole concept" of an oil spill, said David Hollander, the USF chemical oceanographer who made the confirmation, in a phone call with reporters.

"The fact that petroleum hydrocarbons can reside in the water column changes the paradigm of what a traditional oil spill is," which is, usually, confined to the surface, he said. 174.74.2.72 (talk) 20:46, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Newest NASA image

This is from July 28th, and has no clouds in the image - [10] 174.74.68.103 (talk) 22:32, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Terms associated with plugging the well

Are there any sources to indicate the term "static-kill" in use in the oil industry prior to the BP Gulf oil spill or has this term been recently coined by BP and/or the media? The so called "static-kill" sounds like a variation of the "top-kill" where mud is pumped down into the well from the top. The new name seems like it may be just PR spin to make it sound like BP isn't re-trying a method that failed during the first attempt. 69.68.125.6 (talk) 14:13, 2 August 2010 (UTC)