Jump to content

Talk:Deepwater Horizon oil spill/Archive 13

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14

Removal of essay-style sections

I'm sure there is usable content here, at least with the first section, but there is no justification for it to remain in the article as-is (especially given our space limitations and considering WP:OR). One can use this version of the page to access refs used. petrarchan47tc 21:21, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

First section removed, added to the Health Effects summary:

Growing concerns regarding the latent effects of exposure, prompted the National Institute of Health (NIH) to launch a 10 year longitudinal study to track health outcomes associated with the cleanup. The principal goal of the Gulf Long-term Follow up Study (GuLF STUDY) is to identify links between response workers’ physical and mental health symptoms and exposure to oil and dispersants used in the cleanup. Presently, response workers, volunteers and controls not involved in the cleanup are being actively recruited to participate. The case-control study will commence with an initial in-home visit, during which vitals will be recorded and specimens collected. Participants will then be asked to complete subsequent questionnaires every 2 years to track changes in their health.[204] The information collected in this study will provide invaluable insight into the effects of exposures to oil and cleanup dispersants at an unprecedented level. Additionally, the study’s findings may be used to help influence policy decisions on healthcare and health services in the affected region.[205]

However, the interpretation of the outcomes from observational epidemiologic studies, such as the GuLF STUDY, is subject to limitations. First, these study designs do not have rigorous control over external variables that may influence the results; and therefore, they can only provide limited information regarding cause. In fact in a comment to the AFP, BP suggested that many of the health problems suffered by response workers did not deviate significantly from those expected among a workforce of similar size under normal conditions.[206] Another limitation of epidemiologic studies is that it is often difficult to directly measure exposures. For instance, health outcomes for response workers are likely to vary substantially based on the concentration of exposure and method of absorption. Many worked in different areas at different times of the cleanup, so their exposure would have fluctuated making it hard to assign a level of exposure to a particular outcome.[207] Additionally, because exposure pathways differed depending on a worker’s task, establishing an outcome related dose also presents a challenge. Also no initial baseline measures were collected from workers before they were exposed, which makes it difficult to assess the impact of exposure.[208] This isn’t to say there is no value in the information these studies provide, one just needs to exercise prudence in drawing specific conclusions from the results.

Second section, a new one entitled "Environmental Justice" (all but one ref was from the EPA website):

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is guided by Executive Order 12,898 to make environmental justice part of its mission.[299] Environmental justice is described in part as a disproportionate burden that is placed on low income communities and communities of color. The purpose of this Executive Order is to ensure that all individuals should be treated fairly, with no greater harm or risk for any particular group. The BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill led to some issues of unfairness and violation of environmental justice. There were workers whose training was questioned as being adequate, as well as, disproportional dumping of excessive oil waste. The amount of waste, and the method of its disposal in the gulf, created a situation that violated environmental justice. Oily solid waste consisting of oil soaked containment booms, debris and soils, tar balls and patties are not considered hazardous waste due to an exemption that exists for oil and gas. It is identified as Exploration and Production Waste and can be disposed of in municipal landfills.[299] Most of the 96,000 tons of waste collected over a 6 month period was disposed of in municipal landfills in the Gulf. There were two landfills in particular that received almost half of all this waste. The Springhill Landfill in Campelton, Florida received 24,247.4 tons and 76% of the residents that lived within a one mile radius are people of color. The Allied Waste Colonial Landfill in Sorrento, Louisiana received 22,704.8 tons and 34.7% of the residents that lived within a one mile radius are people of color.[300] This is a disproportionate amount of dumping in areas where the residents are people of color. Furthermore, this is a very large amount of waste that is not considered hazardous waste because of the E&P exemption. The future health effects in these areas are of concern.

The clean-up workers included individuals who were previously unemployed, homeless, possibly prisoners. These populations are often undereducated.[299] Furthermore, immigrant workers are often compromised by language barrier issues. This creates a greater potential for a decreased ability to understand workplace safety measures. There is some questioning with regards to compliance of training for heat stress and use of personal protective equipment. There is also a lack of definitive information as to how many workers had medical screening to check for pre-existing health conditions.[301] No mandated regulation exists to have workers demonstrate skills after training, which would ensure understanding of safety requirements.[299] Worker populations that include undereducated and immigrant populations with language barriers are a particularly vulnerable population. Knowing about pre-existing health conditions is important for the well being and future health of these workers as well. Risk of unfairness issues are raised under these circumstances.

The Environmental Protection Agency has initiated nine project grants to address some of the environmental justice issues in the Gulf Region. The intent of these “cooperative agreements” is to provide support for the communities of Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas, following the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill. The grants support the following nine non-profit community based projects: Alabama Coastal Foundation, Bayou Land Resource Conservation & Development Council, Citizens Against Toxic Exposure (CATE), The Deep South Center for Environmental Justice Inc., Faith Answers, Japanese American Citizens League, Louisiana Bucket Brigade (LBB), Mary Queen of Vietnam Community Development Corporation (MQVN), and Teaching Responsible Earth Education. These groups provide workshops and develop easy to read educational materials. An example of this is the “Citizen’s Guide to Understanding Sampling and Monitoring Data After the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill” which purpose is to teach about the quality of air and water and how to be sure seafood is safe to eat. Other focus areas of the grant projects include: education of health impacts and health protection, demystifying scientific data and ongoing research, oil clean up safety training, learning to track the amount of waste disposal, learning methods of sampling to be able to monitor the environment and make informed decisions regarding fishing and where children play and swim. Translators are used when needed to insure comprehension, such as in the Asian communities. An “Earthkeepers” program is utilized to increase student knowledge about the environment and help to decrease fears and stress they may exhibit as a result of having experienced the oil spill.[302]

Environmental justice issues in the aftermath of this spill will continue to be addressed. The Obama Administration has enforced Executive Order 12,898 in an effort to make environmental justice an integral part of protecting human health and the environment.[299]

RFC at BP

An article content Request for Comments has been opened for the BP article concerning how much information about the spill should be included in that article that is also in this article. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:24, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Suggestions for "Oil eating microbes"

Hi, as some of you on this page may know, my name is Arturo and I am a BP employee and the representative of the company on Wikipedia. I have not previously been involved in discussion on this page, although I have on the BP article. Following discussion there about information about Deepwater Horizon oil spill introduced to that article taken from this one, I have been looking at the information in this article and have a few suggestions for editors to consider, starting with the "Oil eating microbes" section.

As a general point about the "Oil eating microbes" section, it seems to focus on the risks and possible negative impacts of microbes, and not much is said about what they actually did to reduce the oil. I have a couple of suggestions here:

  • The first sentences of the second paragraph says "Several studies suggest that microbes successfully consumed part of the oil." I suggest clarifying here how many studies claimed that microbes consumed the oil, when they were published, and briefly explain how much of the spill studies estimate has been consumed. It may also be useful to note how the microbes are said to have consumed the oil.
Here are some helpful sources, including:
Abstract for study presented to the American Chemical Society National Meeting in 2013, "Deepwater Horizon oil spill: A systems biology approach to an ecological disaster"
News articles discussing this research include: "An explosion in oil-munching bacteria made fast work of BP oil spill, scientist says" The Times-Picayune, 8 April 2013; "Study: Oil-Eating Bacteria Mitigated Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill" US News, 8 April 2013; "Gulf of Mexico cleans itself naturally from Deepwater Horizon blowout" Ottawa Citizen, 8 April 2013
September 2012 study in the journal Environmental Science and Technology
Articles on this include:"Bacteria Sucked Up 200,000 Tons of Oil After BP Spill", Live Science, 12 September 2012, quote: "Naturally occurring bacteria gobbled up at least 200,000 tons of oil and natural gas"; "At Least 200,000 Tons of Oil and Gas from Deepwater Horizon Spill Consumed by Gulf Bacteria" University of Rochester, 11 September 2012
2011 Report from the American Academy of Microbiology
November 2011 paper in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (a federally funded study)
June 2011 paper in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
July 2011 study in Environmental Research Letters
January 2011 study in Science
This was reported on in: "After the Great Spill: How the Gulf Cleaned Itself" Time, 10 January 2011
September 2010 study in Science
August 2010 study in Science
News articles on this research include: "New microbe discovered eating Gulf oil spill" NBC News, 24 August 2010; "Study: Oil-Eating Microbes Plentiful in Gulf Oil Spill" PBS Newshour, 24 August 2010
  • In the second paragraph it also states "By mid-September, other research claimed that microbes mainly digested natural gas rather than oil." It is not clear what year this refers to, especially when the citations for the studies mentioned in the previous sentence are from 2011 and 2013. I believe it would help to explain that it was a September 2010 study.
  • In reference to the same study above that claimed "microbes mainly digested natural gas", the study stated that natural gas "primed the growth" of bacteria that could then have gone on to consume oil from the spill—it did not rule out that the bacteria also consumed oil. The source used for this sentence explains that this was initial research that the scientists involved intended to follow up on. By losing the context of timing here, the paragraph reads as though all the research on microbes consuming oil was disproved by this research, rather than this being an early study that was followed up on. Additionally, per the Time article mentioned above, the consumption of natural gas by the microbes was important for the clean up since: "By weight, more methane was released from the wellhead — an estimated 200,000 tons; potentially far more — than any other single hydrocarbon."
  • Also in that second paragraph, the sentence "David L. Valentine, a professor of microbial geochemistry at UC Santa Barbara, said that their oil-gobbling properties had been grossly overstated." The source for this is a blog that seems to have oversimplified what Valentine actually stated. In the source (and quoted in other news stories) he says:
"It's hard to imagine these bacteria are capable of taking down all components of oil," Valentine said. "These stories about superbugs taking down all the oil — it's more complex than that."
Again, there's no context of timing here: this was a source from 2010, and Valentine himself has published further research since then explaining how microbes have consumed oil and other hydrocarbons from the spill. If others agree, this wording could be amended to clarify that this was in 2010, before further reports were published.

I hope that others here will review the above suggestions and consider making changes in the article as they feel are suitable. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 15:01, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Arturo at BP. In my opinion: if BP is interested in making overt contributions to Wikipedia, for the public good—particularly regarding this oil spill—it would do well to contribute in ways that are not self-serving. For example, BP could release primary source Deepwater Horizon documents onto Wikimedia Commons. BP should also release more information about its public relations campaign following the spill. It seems that this campaign has involved at least a billion dollars and is independently notable. I would like to see statements from top officials in BP's marketing department, as well as from any PR and advertising firms BP employs, discussing whether or not employees of these firms have been involved in editing these Wikipedia pages in the past. Were any representatives of BP (or paid public relations firms) involved in the decision not to name the article "BP Oil Spill"? How many any which accounts did they use? I mean no offense to you, personally, Arturo, but action along these lines would help to suggest good faith on the part of BP. Thanks, groupuscule (talk) 20:29, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
I agree. Please also note the concerns I raised on the BP talk page[1] concerning Terry Hazen, cited in the BP missive above, a controversial BP-funded academician that BP is forever promoting. Coretheapple (talk) 13:23, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi Groupuscule, to respond to your questions about BP's involvement on Wikipedia, I am the company's only representative on these pages and was not involved in any discussion about this page prior to making this request. The company was therefore not involved in the decision about naming this page. When I first introduced myself on the BP Talk page, this page had been called "Deepwater Horizon oil spill" for around two years, looking at archived discussion from this page. No other editors are paid by BP to be involved here.
While I can pass on the other points that you have made here, I do not have the authority to release primary sources to Wikimedia Commons. Regarding the sources, a great deal of them will be publicly available in court documents, so they would not need to be placed onto Commons but could be referenced directly. BP does not release its ad budgets, but I assume you know BP has spent approximately $25 billion in claims payments, response, clean-up and restoration costs. Part of this expenditure included support for Gulf Coast tourism through the payment of $179 million for state-led tourism campaigns and $57 million for non-profit groups and government entities to promote the tourism and seafood industries. BP also launched an advertising campaign that complemented these efforts by promoting tourism across the entire Gulf Coast.
To quickly reply to Coretheapple, I have linked to a number of studies above from many different sources so that editors can take all of them into account. Arturo at BP (talk) 19:51, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Understood. I'm just activating a yellow "caution" signal, as opposed to a red or a green. Coretheapple (talk) 20:16, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Just to clarify another point made above, BP has been active not just in the main BP article, but in the environmental effects article [2], Wikiproject Environment[3], the Texas City explosion article[4], Wikiproject Energy[5], the Canadian Wikipedians noticeboard[6], as well as various other noticeboards and user pages, including Jimbo's, not counting the drafts on the BP corporate user's subpages. Coretheapple (talk) 21:55, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Breakdown of BP's reply:

"I am the company's only representative on these pages and was not involved in any discussion about this page prior to making this request. The company was therefore not involved in the decision about naming this page."

This Clintonesque present-tense answer does not state directly that no one on the BP payroll—or connected to a PR or advertising firm paid by BP—was involved the original decision(s) about the name. I would like to see direct statements on this topic with meaningful possibility for verification.

"While I can pass on the other points that you have made here, I do not have the authority to release primary sources to Wikimedia Commons.'"'

It's unfair to "represent" BP on Wikipedia without having the ability to put BP's resources to work for Wikipedia. The position described is one that's structurally slanted in a particular direction; as though BP's only contribution will be to distort Wikipedia by pushing BP talking points.

"Regarding the sources, a great deal of them will be publicly available in court documents, so they would not need to be placed onto Commons but could be referenced directly."

The point is that BP has access to myriad relevant documents, which it would be entitled to release onto WMC with a Creative Commons license. Maybe the court documents could be uploaded also; I don't know about their copyright status.

'"BP does not release its ad budgets,"

How can we take seriously a PR outreach effort from BP if they will not even disclose information about the scope of these efforts? BP should tell us who it has hired, who it has contracted, how much it's paying them, and what they are paid to do.
Furthermore, I'm saying that good faith participation in the encyclopedia would involve contributions that aren't self serving. Hey, maybe BP has some files lying around from the 1953 Iranian coup d'état—those would be a valuable addition. Trying to sell us some BS about the Gulf "cleaning itself" after the largest oil spill in history? No thanks, we get enough of that bias already from corporate media.

"but I assume you know BP has spent approximately $25 billion in claims payments, response, clean-up and restoration costs. Part of this expenditure included support for Gulf Coast tourism through the payment of $179 million for state-led tourism campaigns and $57 million for non-profit groups and government entities to promote the tourism and seafood industries. BP also launched an advertising campaign that complemented these efforts by promoting tourism across the entire Gulf Coast."'

Arturo contradicts himself in the same sentence, as, seemingly, BP is happy to share information that it thinks will serve its public image. In my mind, these double standards alone are enough to disqualify BP representatives from working on Wikipedia articles related to BP and Deepwater Horizon, even as talk page advisors. groupuscule (talk) 00:50, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Lest anyone think that Groupuscule is raising invalid points here: at one point in the main article, BP, it was estimated that 40% of the article text originated in drafts of the article made by BP. Yet this heavy, sometimes overbearing (but always very courteous) presence did not mean that major errors were avoided - when they were in accordance with the BP p.r. line. Hence a serious error, describing the much-hyped "alternative energy" division as one of the main business segments of the company, which it is not, was allowed to fester, misinforming readers, for months, BP's breathing down the article's neck notwithstanding. I applaud Groupuscule for taking a skeptical attitude and I regret that it is not more common. Coretheapple (talk) 17:19, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Groupuscule, I was not at all trying to be evasive. To be clear, there are no other editors paid by BP to be involved on Wikipedia. I work in the communications office at BP America, and when I started offering comments on BP-related discussion pages in May 2012 this was the first time we had done so. Regarding the naming of this article, BP was not involved. If you have concerns about the naming decision of this article, that's not something I have any knowledge about.
On your point about me not being able to release BP's documentation onto Wikimedia Commons, I simply do not have blanket authorization to release information and place it onto Commons. However, if there are specific topics where editors would like me to see if information is available and can be released, then I can look into that. For example, I recently received permission to upload a map of the Prudhoe Bay area showing our operations there, at the request of an editor. That editor has since decided not to work on that article (see discussion here), so I was not sure what to do with the map. If you think it would be helpful, I would be happy to upload it. Similarly, if there are other topics you have in mind where BP may have maps, images or other information that is not available in third party sources, I can look into whether it is possible to provide that. As for the accusation of being self-serving, I have proposed language or information on the BP article talk page that led to changes in the article that clearly added more negative information on BP than was originally in the article, such as the Prudhoe Bay section draft I proposed and stock section which I drafted after a request by an editor that almost always sees things differently than BP. I also have proposed updating information that definitely does not benefit BP such as when I requested language on a biofuels investment be taken out when it was announced the investment would not continue.
I am not sure how you think that I have contradicted myself above. BP as a company, like any company, makes some information public and not others. As a publicly traded company, more is available about BP than most. Not quite sure how your questions about advertising are relevant to a misleading microbes section.
Coretheapple, as has been discussed elsewhere, the 40% figure was based on a comparison of all the drafts in my userspace with the overall length of the BP article. It was not based on the proportion of those drafts that had been added into the article. (And certainly did not take into account that volunteer editors altered my drafts before and after they were added into the article.) You should also be very well aware that the vast majority of the parts of my draft contributions that were added by editors focused on the company's operations and infrastructure, which was missing entirely in May 2012, with very little having to do with BP's environmental record. (At that time, the article was even more focused on criticism of the company than it is now.) Likewise, we have also previously discussed the error (added by a volunteer editor) that changed one sentence of an article that has thousands of words to say that BP's Alternative Energy business was a "main business segment". This was an error I had not noticed among the many made on the BP article but would have corrected had I done so, and I've said so before. And now it seems to me as if you are following me around Wikipedia bringing this up, presenting my contributions in a false light.
Certainly this is not how I was hoping for discussion on this page to begin. I believe I have made valid points regarding the "Oil eating microbes" section: the wording is at times unclear and misleading, even if not intentionally so. It is not just BP's reputation that would be improved by this being addressed, but Wikipedia's reliability and quality as well. I recognize that my contributions must benefit Wikipedia and I think that is the case here. If my suggestions are not of interest to either of you, I think we should get additional opinions. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 21:02, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
The BP corporate employee is not being "followed around" by me nor by anyone. I have commented on this page previously, most recently May 24, and continue to watchlist it. Nor has BP's tireless and apparently permanent presence in these pages been characterized in a false light. The previous discussion alluded to by the BP editor can be found here. There is no need to get into a further discussion of the issue here, least of all with a paid BP rep. Suffice to say that BP scrutinizes its main article with a fine-tooth comb, and it strains credulity to the breaking point to believe that a serious and fundamental error about the structure of the company went unnoticed for a period of ten months. Rather than downplay the seriousness of this error, and make unwarranted comments about editors who volunteer to work on this article without pay and without conflicts of interest, it would be much better from the standpoint of BP's credibility if it admitted to making a serious and obvious error of omission and promised in the future that it would correct errors that are contrary to BP's corporate interests as well as trying to influence the slant of the article to make it more favorable to BP. Given the fact that litigation is currently pending concerning the gulf oil spill, in which billions of dollars is at stake, it is important for Wikipedia editors to treat BP's contributions (both the edits it makes and fails to make) as being consonant with BP's corporate responsibilities to its shareholders which necessarily conflict with the duties Wikipedia owes to its readers. Coretheapple (talk) 21:47, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Arturo, I just can hardly believe after all that has happened here in the last few months that you would be bragging about the Prudhoe Bay rewrite you did. How your research and your access to fellow team members help could have failed to turn up and mention in the article the information about the civil suit that resulted in the largest per-barrel penalty at that time for an oil spill and then act as though it was just a simple oversight on your part is beyond me. Not to mention the fact that you subsequently suggested that I was being less than fair and honest when I later brought this unfortunate episode up. Gandydancer (talk) 01:46, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Coretheapple, it's very apparent that you're watching my activity very closely, and above you have posted links to comments I have made on various discussion pages. I do not understand why you would do this unless you are intending to serve as a watchdog for my activity here. Meanwhile, Core and Gandy, you both seem intent on holding me to a standard of catching every possible error on these pages, which is an impossible standard. Once these have been pointed out, I've always worked toward correcting them, but neither of you acknowledge this. And Gandydancer, yes I do believe you were unfair to me previously, which I explained on my own discussion page at your request recently. Lastly, none of this has anything to do with the problems in the article I've raised above, which I would like to discuss. Arturo at BP (talk) 15:30, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
The trouble is Arturo, if you insist on continuing to defend your Prudhoe Bay section edit, you are as much as admitting that you and your associates knew (know) even less about your own company than wikipedia editor gandydancer did. Actually I am just stunned that you have brought it up again and now are suggesting as much as that I am nitpicking that I comment on it. To have omitted important information and now complain saying, "you both seem intent on holding me to a standard of catching every possible error on these pages, which is an impossible standard" is a very irresponsible statement when all that I have complained about is the fact that the civil suit that resulted in a fine that was the largest per-barrel penalty at that time for an oil spill was not included in your rewrite. Gandydancer (talk) 15:31, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Yes it is irresponsible, but BP is sticking to its story, absurd as it is, and even dynamite isn't going to shake it loose. This seems to be an object lesson of the futility of "working with" a paid corporate spokesman, to use the BP rep's terminology, in this or any company, if the object is to obtain an unbiased and complete, warts and all, source of information. In my opinion, requests for information should be directed to independent experts such as Hugh, rather than to the company, because relying upon the company to provide both positive and negative information is bound to disappoint. Likewise, it is apparent that this company, which clearly has multiple eyeballs on this article, has no intention of correcting even serious errors that are in its favor. I think that it is interesting to contrast the attitude we've encountered here with the sincere and forthright position taken by another corporate rep, who once stated as follows:
"There is no such thing as ABF/AGF when it comes to PR participation, because PR is agnostic to the success or failure of the independent websites it works with. Any benefit or damage is merely incidental. We should only assume they're trying to do their job and acknowledge that each PR rep has a different competency-level, corporate bureaucracy and overall approach. What would be more on-target is to discuss the strategies PR reps use to serve their clients that are generally unwelcome and how to discourage them."[7]
I think that if BP leveled with editors here, as that p.r. person did, it would be experiencing less backlash and resentment. Meanwhile I think that editors should disengage from BP's corporate PR effort, not direct inquiries toward BP, and solicit exclusively nonconflicted sources of information that have a greater likelihood of being both accurate, complete and, of course, not cherry-picked or biased. If outright errors are alleged by a company they can be examined. However, a bald assertion of error or bias is not proof. What I've noticed in the BP articles is that supposed inaccuracies or bias are expressions of unhappiness with the articles. However, editors are not required to make subjects of articles happy with their articles. Coretheapple (talk) 16:15, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Response from Hugh Kaufman / EPA

As some know, since BP has a presence on Wikipedia, editors have discussed how to respond in a way that will keep things balanced. We finally realized that since BP has experts to consult, the independent editors should mirror that as much as possible. I've shown Hugh Kaufman (EPA whistleblower) the links BP has provided at BP talk, and since similar ones have been left here, I'll post his reply at both pages. I've italicized his words. These are the links and selected text I received, in this order:

---

Hazen's position BEFORE BP paid him off:

Some experts have also said that the use of Corexit has prolonged by decades the presence of toxic crude oil, because the dispersant sinks the oil beneath the ocean surface, where it cannot be quickly broken down by sun, waves and microbes.

And the head of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory’s Ecology Department – Terry Hazen – argues that the use of dispersants can delay recovery of ocean ecosystems by decades:

Hazen has more than 30 years experience studying the effects of oil spills. He says the oil will be damaging enough; toxic dispersants will just make it worse. He points to the 1978 Amoco Cadiz Spill off the coast of Normandy as an example. He says areas where dispersants were used still have not fully recovered, while areas where there was no human intervention are now fine.source

Use of Corexit in 1978 Oil Spill Delayed Recovery by DECADES

I previously pointed out: Some experts have also said that the use of Corexit has prolonged by decades the presence of toxic crude oil, because the dispersant sinks the oil beneath the ocean surface...

---

"Just three days after the U.S. Coast Guard admiral in charge of the BP oil spill cleanup declared little recoverable surface oil remained in the Gulf of Mexico, Louisiana fishers Friday found miles-long strings of weathered oil floating toward fragile marshes on the Mississippi River delta..." source

'Serious problems' for wildlife forecast if the oil gets into coastal marshes

---

"The criticism of the government report comes as other independent studies this week concluded that not only has the oil not vanished, but it could be significantly more dangerous that we've been led to believe. Scientists at the University of Georgia have found that the vast majority of the oil is still in the water. Scientists from the University of South Florida have a new study finding that the oil suspended underwater may be more toxic to microorganisms in the Gulf than researchers previously thought. And researchers from Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution released yet another study contradicting government reports. Theirs found that not only is the dispersed oil hanging in a 22-mile-long, one-mile-wide plume, it's also degrading much more slowly in the plumes than it would at the surface. 'The plumes could stick around for quite a while,' study co-author Ben Van Mooy told the AP. source

Government officials admit the now-infamous report was just an "estimate."

---

The Toxic Gulf - The uncalculated aftermath of the deepwater horizon oil spill

---

(Petrarchan's question to Hugh Kaufman: "from an initial glance, it looks like there is no new direct refutation of Hazen's findings.
In an article from 2012: "Ira Leifer, a petroleum geochemist also at UC Santa Barbara who co-wrote a rebuttal to the 2011 paper published in Science, said the latest study was limited because it was based on a computer model "which is only as good as the input or assumptions" on which it is based. He noted, for example, that the authors had neglected to include a discussion of whether the bacteria would run out of critical nutrients necessary for them to consume the oil and gas and reproduce" source
I think from your reply, any proof of plumes is proof that microbes didn't eat all the oil, so more of an indirect refutation?

Hugh Kaufman:

Dispersants sink the oil, shielding it from the natural processes like sun, waves and microbes which break it down:

[Texas A&M University coral reef expert Wes Tunnell] stood in the clear, waist-deep water of the protected reef lagoon holding what appeared to be a three-inch-thick slab of sandy gray clay. When he broke it in two, it was jet black on the inside, with the texture and smell of an asphalt brownie. Here on the lagoon side, where the reef looked gray and dead, the Ixtoc tar mat was still partially buried in the sediments. But on the ocean side of the reef, where winds and waves and currents were stronger, no oil remained. The lesson for Louisiana and the other Gulf states is clear, Tunnell thinks. Where there is wave energy and oxygen, sunlight and the Gulf’s abundant oil-eating bacteria break it down fairly quickly. When oil falls to the bottom and gets entrained in low-oxygen sediments like those in a lagoon—or in a marsh—it can hang around for decades, degrading the environment.source

Petrarchan, I'm not certain that I understand entirely which comments are which, but I welcome Hugh Kaufman's input here. I would like to be clear about something: I'm not offering sources with the goal of arguing that the other viewpoints should not be represented. My point is that studies reported on by news sources on these issues are not currently included, and should be for the sake of balance.
Based on the links provided, I would also like to point something out about Terry Hazen's research (not that editors should focus only on this research, but also on the other papers provided above).
The source provided for Hazen's comments about Corexit is itself sourced to two articles where he is quoted, both from 2010. The Energy Biosciences Institute was created in 2007, and BP has funded it and its research since then. Hazen was with EBI (and therefore received funding via this institute) since before 2010. Your implication above that he has changed his opinions because of BP's funding does not appear to be supported by your evidence. Your allegation that Hazen was "paid off" is a very serious charge, and one that must require more verification than you simply saying so. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 17:13, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Multiple references to the same footnote

There are cases when editors re-insert the same source, which is already in use as a reference, as a separate footnote. This increases the overall number of footnotes and my be confusing. It is possible to refer to the same footnote more than once by using named references. More information how to do this is provided at WP:REFNAME. Beagel (talk) 06:11, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the "ref name" function is easy, and Twinkle makes it easier. Coretheapple (talk) 16:21, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Genetically modified Alcanivorax borkumensis was added to the waters to speed digestion.[156][157

There was NO Genetically modified bacteria used. That is a naturally occurring bacteria in the Gulf. Also no toxicologist has ever linked any skin problems to the them or to the Corexit.

[1]

~Cairenn~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cairenn Day (talk • contribs) 20:33, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

RESTORE Act needs to be reflected here

There is already discussion of the NRDA process, but the RESTORE Act (the act by congress that diverts 80% of the civil and adminstrative penalties to coastal restoration projects) should be listed here. There may even be a need to create a page for this. This is already notable, as it will move billions into the 5 gulf state for restoration projects (not limited to just impacted coastal areas, but including a coastal management zone +25 miles, and projects ranging from economic development to water quality to actual habiatat restoration). This is already big politics in the impacted states, and needs some content here. If there's anyone who is really up on the situation, I'd highly suggest adding the content. I will try to at my lesiure, but am a bit pressed for time (actively dealing with this issue professionally:)).204.65.34.238 (talk) 19:36, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Article Needs Updating to Cover Controversy over Compensation Procedures under Juneau

There is a major controversy ongoing over allegations by BP (endorsed inter alia by the NYT writer Joe Nocera) that, especially since Feinberg was replaced by Juneau, inadequate safeguards have been in place to screen out baseless claims of losses. I take no position on this controversy -- I do not have an adequate grasp of the facts and am as willing in principle to believe bad things about big oil companies as about Louisiana plaintiffs' lawyers -- but the WP article looks dated through its failure to cover this aspect of the issue. Perhaps someone who is better-informed can take a shot at this update, but please let's aim from the outset for an encyclopedic account -- one-sided rants (on either side) please do not apply! Nandt1 (talk) 14:01, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

The detailed overview belongs to Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Trust article. I added the basic information about the controversy to that article but it needs to be expanded. While expanded there, it should be properly summarized here. Beagel (talk) 15:45, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
To ensure consistency between DWH series articles and creation of POV fork, I once more would like to recommend to expand the information in Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Trust and only after that make a proper summary here, not creating a different version here. The latest addition here does not give a clear overview about the dispute concerning interpretation of the settlement agreement which is the basis of claim compensation. In addition, part of this addition bases on opinion story (which may or may not be neutral but what is POV by its nature as all opinions are). The addition also one-sided, something what was asked by Nandt1 to be avoided. Beagel (talk) 04:34, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
(removed comment) petrarchan47tc 18:19, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Petrarchan47, could you please clarify who are these "industry representatives who watch this page" and who approve updates? Thank you. Beagel (talk) 05:29, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
On my talk page you indicated you would like me to remove my comment. I have done so. People's edit histories are packed with the type of information you're requesting, but as you know, we are anonymous here so any proof about who we are IRL is not something I can provide, so I shouldn't have said anything. You were right to ask for the removal. petrarchan47tc 18:19, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Following the recent press on the compensation procedures, I thought to check here to see if anything had been added to the article and noticed the recent edits, as well as this discussion. For editors who may not know, I am the representative of BP on Wikipedia, but I do not have any influence to "approve" edits. My contributions here strictly involve offering suggestions or resources via the talk page. If I may, I would like to add a few comments regarding the coverage of the settlement agreement between BP and the PSC.
The Teague op-ed from The New York Times is cited here as if it is a news article rather than an opinion piece. I am writing to note that there are other available sources that cover issues around the settlement agreement. Below are some links to news pieces that editors may want to consider:
  • An op-ed piece from The New York Times by Joe Nocera. I understand opinion pieces are not always the best choice, but I feel that it provides a good counterpoint to the Teague piece that is currently used almost exclusively as the citation for this topic.
  • A Times-Picayune article from July 15th that discusses BP's concerns that the compensation program wasn't properly identifying fraudulent claims.
  • A Businessweek article that provides more background to BP's appeal.
  • A Reuters piece published following a recent ruling. This may be the best article to use to form the basis of the update since it provides the most fact-based summary of events.
I hope these sources can be of help to editors in compiling a more balanced summary of events. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 05:44, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
There has definitely been an aggressive and expensive public relations push by BP concerning supposed fraud. There is a full-page ad in the New York Times practically every day. However we Wikipedia editors need to conduct our own independent research on that point, without "help" from BP. Coretheapple (talk) 15:52, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Coretheapple, ideally editors will research and find neutral sources themselves that they use to update the article. My point above is that currently the material about this in the article is based on one single source, an opinion piece that is far from unbiased. In linking to a few alternate sources, particularly pieces from well-regarded news outlets that meet Wikipedia's reliable sourcing guidelines, I hoped to show editors that there is more and better news coverage available that discusses this matter. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 21:45, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Dolphin findings

New research released petrarchan47tc 08:59, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

More updates (Dec 2013)

More petrarchan47tc 03:02, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

>> UK oil firm told to pay up for Gulf oil spill(Lihaas (talk) 05:26, 14 January 2014 (UTC)).

Oil spill estimate is incorrect

Currently it says: "The total discharge has been estimated at 4.9 million barrels (210 million US gal; 780,000 m3)"

However, US government experts at the trial in fall 2013 estimated 4.2 million barrels, or 176 million gallons, spilled into the Gulf. BP's estimate was 2.45 million barrels, or nearly 103 million gallons].

Source: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/bp-trial-focus-shifts-how-much-oil-spilled

What I have done is added the information from federal court from 2013. Over the years since the spill, the gap between BP's estimates and the US government's estimates has narrowed.

Hanxu9 (talk) 15:43, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Your edit needs to be changed. The amount of oil collected and burned is part of the amount of oil discharged. BTW, most people are not aware of the massive amount of oil that was burned which, if I remember correctly, broke records as well. I can't swear to this, but it seems that I remember reading a suggestion that the amount of pollution created by the burning oil roughly matched the amount of pollution created by the Gulf traffic of an entire summer. Gandydancer (talk) 17:00, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm reverting to our long standing version. Once the trial is complete, there may be justification to make a change here. petrarchan47tc 20:01, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Tone of Article

I suppose this article could be made more hysterical if we really put our minds to it. However, I think it better to check the articles for both the Chernobyl disaster and the Exxon Valdez oil spill for examples of a more encyclopedic tone and a more appropriate (shorter) length. The article as it is is a great example of WP's unfortunate tendency to emphasize drama over content and readability, particularly when disasters are involved. This is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. Geogene (talk) 01:57, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

It would be helpful if your complaints contained a bit of specificity. As for the length, by Wikipedia standards it is just right, and has not changed much since it went through a major overhaul a year ago, when it was trimmed to the present length. petrarchan47tc 07:21, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
I cannot describe "proper" style in a handful of specific examples. That requires the community of editors to have an "ear" for what works and what doesn't. According to WP:TONE, an article should be written in a tone that is "formal, impersonal, and dispassionate" and the language should be "businesslike". Note that all of those might be considered subjective, and if people don't agree on what is "businesslike" then the guide is of no use, but I gave some examples above of articles about catastrophes that are written in a tone much more consistent with an encyclopedia that this one. This article, generally, stresses the magnitude of the spill at every opportunity. Part of the problem is the overuse of adjectives, which leads to reader fatigue. The use of superlatives is excessive, the word "unprecendented" occurs no less than three times in the article. There are too many quotes in the article, and the choice of quoted material is interesting to me; it is the sort of thing you get when you have a dozen or so editors mining news articles for the most disturbing expert quotes they could find. It reads as if the editorial community was trying to scare the readership as much as inform it. I suspect that the Britannica article on this event does not have a quote about "rectal bleeding" that might in theory have happened to someone that was exposed to the oil. And touching on the article length, many of the facts presented, while probably true, are trivial. Do we need to know that at the peak of the recovery effort there were 47,849 workers involved? Would it have mattered to the readers if it were 50,103 workers? What if 7% burned and 1% was taken up in the 2,063 skimmers and the 32 machines that were each capable of removing 2,000 barrels per day? Such specificity loads the text down with trivia. Note the reader complaints about the difficult read.
Here is an example of what I mean by quote-mining: "Mike Robicheux, a Louisiana physician, described the situation as "the biggest public health crisis from a chemical poisoning in the history of this country." Dr. Robicheux is a physician, which I presume means that he's a medical doctor practicing primary care. Also, he lives in Louisiana and may have treated people that were exposed. But how do these facts qualify him as an expert on public health, or the history of chemical poisoning in the United States? Neither of these are normally taught in medical schools. A proper source would be a comment from a leading public health official, the EPA, or the CDC. But what he said is hyperbolic, so he was quoted as an "expert". Geogene (talk) 00:13, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


Faulting Nonsense

I recently tried to remove the following from the article, but my work was undone by Coretheapple: "The latter would indicate that the disaster might have opened a new fault on the sea floor, with the possibility of indefinite release of oil." That's nonsense. The source appears to be a journalist's uninformed speculation (see the source). Who can provide a reliable source (a geologist, geophysicist, or other geoscientist) that says such speculation is plausible? Geogene (talk) 23:54, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I found an existing source used in the article (an Al Jazeera piece) that was much better. Basically the experts were worried that the seep might originate in the reservoir, then follow the Macondo well casing up to a hypothetical, natural/pre-existing fault, and then follow the fault plane (a flow conduit) to wherever it outcrops on the seabed. This would create a new human-caused seep some distance from the actual wellhead. This I find plausible, and have re-worded that part accordingly (and added the aj piece as a second citation). I also added verbiage claiming that the seep is relatively small, about the same size as many naturally occurring seeps in the Gulf of Mexico, and not an immediate threat to wildlife. Some of you may not like that, but that's what the experts in the original source said, and it places the seep in context. If you like, there's a lawyer in the aj source that sees things differently...although I'm not sure I take the opinion of a lawyer over the opinion of a scientist. Geogene (talk) 18:18, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Human Health Problems

The introduction of the article says the following: "Due to the months-long spill, along with adverse effects from the response and cleanup activities, extensive damage to marine and wildlife habitats, fishing and tourism industries, and human health problems have continued through 2014.[15][16]" How is it possible for a source to justify the claim that "human health problems" are happening in 2014 when both sources are more than a year old? They can't. Somebody just decided to claim that health problems are still happening and didn't bother to find an RS. And I have only spot-checked this article for that kind of thing, I have no idea how many other unsupported assertions there are. Geogene (talk) 00:36, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


I added medsource tags to some things in the health section yesterday. Sources used for human biomedical issues usually have to meet higher standards than the general RS standards. I just don't see good enough sources about widespread health problems here on land, although we can mine the Louisiana DPH data for those purposes. And we might be able to find "good enough" sources on the human health for oil spills in general in the medical literature. Maybe court documents could work too? Might take it to the RS noticeboard. Geogene (talk) 16:59, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Current Status: Environmental and Fisheries, Debunking Myths

Have a look at what actual scientists were saying last month here:

It's a lot different from what the article says, isn't it? Geogene (talk) 00:35, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Riki Ott

I did a Google Scholar search for Riki Ott, who is quoted here as an expert. I was unable to find any peer-reviewed papers from her. If she's a scientist even remotely involved in oil spill work, how is that even possible? Geogene (talk) 01:09, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Here's an example of one of the sources currently in use in this article, in Dr. Ott is cited as an expert. I suggest people read it. Who wants to go on the record and say that this is sound, authoritative science? http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/upshot/oil-eating-microbes-may-not-cracked.html Geogene (talk) 17:07, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Struck that from article as WP:FRINGE. Geogene (talk) 17:01, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

By admitting you don't know who Riki Ott is, you've just discredited yourself in a very big way. petrarchan47tc 18:22, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello Petrarchan47. No, I haven't heard of her, for whatever that may tell you about my personal credibility. She doesn't seem to have any peer-reviewed publishing history that I could find, although she does have a relevant Ph.D. (and therefore she has at least some thesis/dissertation-related work at some point in the past). She appears to represent fringe views on health and environmental effects of the spill that probably don't in themselves qualify as RS, and are being given undue weight. Her conspiracy theories don't help in that regard, either. This is all the more serious because we are using her as a source on not only scientific but medical issues. I also see that she is referred to in many other articles related to the BP Oil Spill, particularly the Corexit article, in which we are also in disagreement. I think I'll consult an RS or Fringe noticeboard so we can get some outside feedback on the situation. I note that you also disagree with my medrs tags, as you removed them. You did not remove the scirs tag I stuck on Al Jazeera, it may be that you didn't see it. Geogene (talk) 17:26, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

>> US court rejects BP pay-out appeal(Lihaas (talk) 15:52, 4 March 2014 (UTC)).

Respirators and Misleading Coverage

We had a discussion on respirators back in 2010, in which I explained how misleading it is to go on about BP not allowing workers to use them. There seemed to be a consensus at the time, I suggest that be reviewed. [8]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Geogene (talk • contribs)

I notice that original research from OSHA was added. I've removed per WP:PRIMARY. It should not be added back in unless interpreted by a reliable secondary source. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 01:09, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
That is not "original research" WP:OR. Reverted. Note that there is also a secondary source already present. Geogene (talk) 01:12, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
I pressed "enter" too soon in my edit summary. You are using the primary source to contradict a secondary source you consider to be misleading. I don't believe that's appropriate. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 01:14, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
You don't? Let's discuss the relevant policy. You first. Geogene (talk) 01:16, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
It is incumbent upon editors who wish to add material to justify such additions. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 01:19, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

But it is not incumbent to repeatedly revert without good reason. My content you removed was reliably sourced (OSHA itself). What secondary source do you claim it contradicts? Geogene (talk) 01:22, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

You're using it to undermine the claims made by workers in the first sentence concerning respirators, a claim that you previously marked as "dubious." The Wall Street Journal article is fine. The primary source is not, and you need a secondary source to interpret that source in the manner you are using it. Your personal expertise in the subject is evident and is appreciated, but I don't believe that it can be deployed in the manner that you are seeking to do so here, as I do believe it crosses the boundary line into original research, specifically WP:PRIMARY. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 01:29, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
It does not "contradict" the claims by the workers at all. The workers claimed that they were not allowed to wear respirators. OSHA's policy tells why they are not allowed to wear respirators. The two claims are not contradictory. However, you may well be right about needing a secondary source to back my interpretation...assuming all OSHA pages really qualify as primary. I will need to consider this. Thank you for discussing. Geogene (talk) 01:37, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Your intent was clear from the tag you had placed after the sentence reporting their claims, saying "Dubious |Respirators and Misleading Coverage|reason=Because contaminants were measured at acceptable levels, BP would have to prove that wearing a respirator would not create an additional hazard, eg, heat stress. To do otherwise would be illegal and likely be considered negligence." You replaced that with the material from the OSHA manual. I would not go so far as to say that "all" OSHA pages qualify as primary sources and cannot be used without interpretation by secondary sources. However, this one I think clearly was. It was a technical document, somewhat like a page from the Federal Register, and I think that we are quite consistent in not using such primary text in articles without interpretation. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 01:46, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
My "intent", however you choose to interpret it, is a red herring. But your other point about interpreting a primary source is salient, and for me educational. The content in question isn't much of an interpretation, but may be too much of one. That OSHA manual may be too primary. I will not restore the disputed content to the article without seeking consultation here first. Geogene (talk) 16:34, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
I agree that intent is subordinate to actual usage of the primary source, and I appreciate your flexibility in approaching this. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 16:45, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Let's fix the lead...

This sentence from the lead: " In October 2013, Al Jazeera reported that the gulf ecosystem was "in crisis", citing a decline in seafood catches, as well as deformities and lesions found in fish." had been questioned (though not here in the article talk page--?). Perhaps I read too hastily, but I could not even find it in the body of the article. Perhaps we can come up with something better? Ideas? Gandydancer (talk) 20:30, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I removed the Al Jezeera info from the lead and replaced it with two 2014 peer reviewed studies--much better I think. Gandydancer (talk) 14:22, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

SCIRS and MEDRS Questions

I took the SCIRS and MEDRS question to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. [9] Geogene (talk) 15:43, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

This sort of issue should first be discussed on the talk page. I made some changes and I believe that they have improved the article. It is good to have fresh eyes to look at the article, but a battleground mentality--seeing all of the existing editors as the enemy--is not helpful. Gandydancer (talk) 14:20, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Sounds like good advice. Geogene (talk) 22:08, 2 April 2014 (UTC)


Greenwashing?

Recently removed from article: "Two years after the spill, a study found that by breaking oil mats up into droplets, Corexit had made the oil 52 times more toxic to the plankton that forms the base of the marine food chain. This is because the small droplets are more easily absorbed by the microscopic organisms.[10]." Here is the diff of it being removed: [11]. Why this cited information was removed is not immediately apparent to me. Geogene (talk) 22:08, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I find it hard to follow and feel that it needs to be rewritten. It starts out with the Rico-Martinez study and then switches to the "dirty bathtub" info and then switches back (I think). There is a quote that needs to be followed by the source. Plus, I'd not use a quote by an unknown--if anything Ira MacDonald should be quoted who is pretty well known by now. I'd perhaps include the EPA's position as well. It's perhaps too much info for this article... I don't mean to be critical and perhaps I did not spend enough time trying to figure it out, but IMO the para needs to be cut way back or even moved to a diff article. Gandydancer (talk) 23:13, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
I removed the author's comments, cutting back on the amount of copy. I also removed unrelated sources and the discussion piece which had no secondary source. Gandydancer (talk) 19:21, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Some of that is new content I haven't looked at very closely yet. It came from recent edits of the Corexit article. There's a parallel discussion on it in Talk:Corexit that you may not be aware of but might be interested in. Basically we'd like to have better secondary sources if we criticize Rico-Martinez. Won't hurt my feelings if we delete that part for now. Geogene (talk) 23:53, 2 April 2014 (UTC)


So basically this article is going to talk about how toxic Corexit is and how it made the spill worse, but you (plural) don't think it should ever even mention what Corexit is supposed to do, or why they sprayed millions of gallons of it in the first place? Really? Do I need to take this to the POV noticeboard to get some constructive comment on it? Am I going to have to take everything to NBs now? Geogene (talk) 17:08, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't even know what you're talking about. The purpose of the noticeboards is to resolve disputes, not as the first step taken when there is a difference of opinion. Coretheapple (talk) 17:22, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, so I'm not enthusiastic about going there over it. Does the article mention what dispersants are supposed to do, perhaps it's in there somewhere and I didn't see it. It's a long article. Geogene (talk) 18:29, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Still Spraying Corexit?

Who can provide a secondary source for Ott's letter about (ongoing?) spraying of Corexit? Her letter that was published by HuffPo is a primary source. We need secondary sources to ensure it's notable, apparently. Geogene (talk) 21:24, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

By the way, the GAP statement is also a primary source. The link to it also appears to be broken. Geogene (talk) 21:36, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

"Delete Practically Unknown Journal?"

Question: why does Gandydancer delete criticism of the Rico-Martinez study with the rationale being that the criticism was printed in a "completely unknown journal",[12] when Rico-Martinez was published in the same "unknown journal"? Geogene (talk) 18:24, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I said practically unknown journal. I could well be wrong about this, however we have no WP article on the journal. As far as I could tell, they are peer reviewed as far as the studies they publish go. The authors of the study have other published studies and we have a secondary source as well. The author of the opinion article have little to no published material and there is no secondary source. Gandydancer (talk) 19:13, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Why did you delete my comment [13]? Anyway this happens from time to time, where a big paper gets blockbuster headlines (eg, POTUS gives a Rose Garden speech) but then dies in obscurity because the "discovery" was never there. This has happened with meteorite ALH84001 and Ivory-billed woodpecker. But probably those articles don't claim that there's life on Mars or living IBWs in Arkansas. So we're not slaves to that rule, necessarily. Geogene (talk) 19:34, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Well that was odd...your edit:
We have to have a WP article on a journal for it to be significant enough to use it as a source? That's a new one to me. Did you miss that the Rico-Martinez study was published in that same journal? Geogene (talk) 19:18, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
was there last time I looked and then I had an edit conflict when I wrote in the previous thread and there must have been some sort of editing glitch. Sorry about that. Gandydancer (talk) 19:41, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
The authors of the "comment"[1] on Rico-Martínez, et al.[2] are all employed by Ecosystem Management & Associates, Inc., "an environmental consulting firm under contract to BP," and they've been saying the same thing since, at least, August 2010.[3]
  1. ^ Coelho, G.; Clark, J.; Aurand, D. (2013). "Toxicity testing of dispersed oil requires adherence to standardized protocols to assess potential real world effects". Environmental Pollution. 177: 185–8. doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2013.02.004. PMID 23497795.
  2. ^ Rico-Martínez, R.; Snell, T. W.; Shearer, T. L. (2013). "Synergistic toxicity of Macondo crude oil and dispersant Corexit 9500A® to the Brachionus plicatilis species complex (Rotifera)". Environmental Pollution. 173: 5–10. doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2012.09.024. PMID 23195520.
  3. ^ Schmidt, C. W. (2010). "Between the Devil and the Deep Blue Sea: Dispersants in the Gulf of Mexico". Environmental Health Perspectives. 118 (8): A338–44. doi:10.1289/ehp.118-a338. PMC 2920105. PMID 20675260.
Secondary sources showing support for the opinions expressed in the "comment" are required if we are going to use it to rebut Rico-Martínez, et al. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 23:54, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
That is the consensus over at Talk:Corexit as well. As for the author affiliations, that's good to know but considering that we already are using "truthout.org" as a source here, I don't see the problem. In fact many of our sources are advocacy groups. Geogene (talk) 00:37, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
By the way, "Devil and the Deep Blue Sea" there is a usable secondary source. Add by edit: although not for that I see. But I bet it could be used somewhere in the article. Geogene (talk) 00:41, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Coastal cleanup

I don't think this article has anything specifically about this, and I don't know precisely what is meant by this. But The New York Times made a point of mentioning a milestone in the cleanup operation that happened in April, so it would be worthwhile to figure out how to incorporate that into the article, to figure out what exactly that meant, and to provide more background.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 19:22, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

The Wall Street Journal came out the same day, or the next, with this: Is gulf cleanup over or not? BP and Coast Guard differ. I think it could be expanded, but the section you've added seems to cover all the bases for now. We don't have many sources to cite. petrarchan47tc 01:12, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
I got distracted and didn't go back to this. And it's looking like I won't have much time to get into it again.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:51, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2010/0524/Despite-BP-oil-spill-Louisiana-still-loves-Big-Oil. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 01:34, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Desoto Canyon

Why are there multiple references to this oil well being situated in Mississippi Canyon? Mississippi Canyon is to the WEST of the Mississippi River delta and the oil spill occurred to the EAST of the delta in DESOTO Canyon. All the scientific reports correctly note this distinction. Consult any nautical chart - Macondo well is in Desoto Canyon,not Mississippi Canyon.

Could you please provide any reliable source saying that Macondo well is located in Deseoto Canyon and not in Mississippi Canyon? Right now there a number of reliable sources saying that it is located in Mississippi Canyon, including the exploration license which was issued for the block 252 of Mississippi Canyon and the final investigation report saying the same thing. Beagel (talk) 08:06, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, consult a nautical chart. You would have seen that Macondo is right there in the Mississippi Canyon & hundreds of miles from Desoto. Matter of fact, very little or any oil activities occur at Desoto because it's been declared a Marine Protected Area. Not sure where you got your info unless it was from one of the conspiracy sites claiming that the dispersant drove the underwater oil into a thick blob which is now resting on bottom of the Desoto Canyon. While this MAY be true, but most likely ISN'T, if the oil is there then it came from the Mississippi Canyon where the well was, not from Desoto itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.159.69.146 (talk) 07:06, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Has anyone ever wondered why the blind/shear rams were locked out on the rigfloor???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.221.115.194 (talk • Special:Contributions/216.221.115.194) 15:44, 12 July 2015 ‎(UTC)

The "external links" section is clearly out of hand. Here's what is there now:

Lead state agency websites

News media

Interactive maps

Images

Animations and graphics

I recommend culling The Images, Animations and Graphics sections. I've never seen a News Media section, so maybe we should cull that, too. The state agencies section has only two links in it that are actually about Deepwater Horizon and not oil spills in general, as far as I can tell. Anyone else want to take a look individually at the other links and see what can be removed? Can any of these things be converted into references for claims in the article? 0x0077BE [talk/contrib] 19:29, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I think you have a point, especially concerning the news media section. Coretheapple (talk) 20:30, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
I'd like to keep the Picayune and the NYT news sources. Gandydancer (talk) 04:30, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Well why don't we start by culling it down to that. I actually hadn't noticed all the links. They are a bit much. Coretheapple (talk) 09:15, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Missing oil found

Missing oil from the spill has been reported to have been found.

—Wavelength (talk) 19:50, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

media coverage of the spill

How come no news accounts about the Deepwater Horizon disaster ever mention that it sank on Earth Day? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.239.124.51 (talk) 14:19, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

This article needs to go on a diet: summary style

There are probably more section in the archives, but that gives an idea that the problem has been around for a long time and worries started long before it got anywhere near the size it is (for example the 117k is now 194k and the 17,000 words (including the appendix and templates etc) is just over 43,000 words.

Has anyone who edits this page tried to view in on a mobile phone? Also many people outside the States, have to pay by the megabyte/gigabyte for downloading data (particularly on mobile networks), so the size of this article had a real cost for many readers.

See summary style. Take one section as an example Deepwater Horizon oil spill#Civil litigation and settlements currently the lead in the article has 150 words (885 characters). The section that is meant to be in "summary style" is 891 words (5,600 characters) which goes up to 7,000 if the citations are included. The section includes quote and lots of other stuff that is better off in the main subsidiary article. There is no excuse for the summary to be larger than the lead in the main sub article -- let alone having more words in the summary than there are characters in the lead of the main subsidiary article! If this section is representative of the whole article then junking the current text for the text in the lead of the article would bring the article down to about 194k*(885/5,600) or about 30k. Even if one decides that the lead is too short and needs expanding then even doubling the lead would still only double the size of this article to 60k. -- PBS (talk) 12:57, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the same problem. The article is well-constructed, and involves a subject that still reverberates today. Coretheapple (talk) 13:47, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Doesn't size matter? -- PBS (talk) 11:29, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
I agree with PBS. What you propose was mainly done at the beginning of 2013 )please see archives for further details). Most of these expansions you mentioned were done after that as some editors object WP:SS very strongly in regard of articles about BP and Deepwater Horizon. Beagel (talk) 18:02, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
PBS, size does matter, but we are not a paper encyclopedia, and it doesn't matter as much. The article is written in summary style, but there is a lot of ground to cover. Coretheapple (talk) 18:04, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Have you tried reading this article on a phone? Do you pay for your data usage? The whole point of this not being a paper encyclopaedia means that hyper links make it easy, via links, to go to more detailed articles, (something that is not easy for a reader to do with paper). But rather than looking at the whole article lets look at the specific section I have highlighted. What do you think is the justification for the large difference in size between the lead in the subsidiary article and the text in this article? To take one example why are the quotes necessary (as they can be read in the detailed subsidiary article for anyone interested)? -- PBS (talk) 05:31, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
I read this article on a phone and it's fine. It's a big subject so it requires a big article. But the article is well organized and is divided into logical sections, with sufficient but not excessive detail. True some of the photos are stacked in a phone, but I don't see that as a major issue. Nor do I think your "data usage" argument has the slightest merit. This is a text article, so the few K bytes consumed by this article is small, and cutting it in half so that it reads like an article in My Weekly Reader. to satisfy some niggardly phone plan, would be insane as well as de minimis. It was a big oil spill. If it was a small oil spill with fewer consequences, it would be a smaller article. Coretheapple (talk) 14:09, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Article tagged 2/23/15

The article has been tagged with the complaint: "Poor overview, far too many specifics, and outdated". IMO the overview and specifics seem reasonable, but I am wondering about the "outdated" concern. I wonder if we need to address that? Thoughts? Gandydancer (talk) 13:36, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Gandy. The article was tagged on February 13, not on February 23. I think we should ask Ɱ for reasons why they tagged this article. I think that there are two or three topics which need an update. First one is litigation information. There was ruling on January 15, which established that the maximum penalty could be $13.7 billion, not $18 billion as stated in this article. The exact amount of the penalty is still be ruled by the court. The second issue is about the new scientific studies about the impact to the marine environment published after the last major update of this article. Third issue is about the new studies concerning the missing oil. I think that we should at first to update specific articles (Deepwater Horizon litigation), Environmental impact of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill) and then summarize it here. Beagel (talk) 15:47, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Beagel hit the nail on the head. Another: "Some reports indicate the well site continues to leak" is cited to articles from 2011 and 2012. I hope that and the above clarify these issues. I would make the changes myself, though I'm not knowledgeable enough in the topic to provide the most succinct overview.--ɱ (talk · vbm) 22:28, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
@Ɱ: Do you plan to make these updates? Beagel (talk) 15:54, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
No, as I said I don't really know enough about this topic to do it myself.--ɱ (talk · vbm) 23:37, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
It would be reasonable to include "reports from 2012 indicated...". I will update accordingly. petrarchan47คุก 00:16, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Deepwater_Horizon_oil_spill/Archive_13&oldid=1136309844"