Jump to content

Talk:Deepwater Horizon oil spill/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 10

Edit request from Arnegrim, 25 May 2010

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

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

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

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

I agree completely with Arnegrim. The references given appear to me to say "expected to within a few weeks", "could" and so on, none of them seem to say "it's now the biggest oil spill in US history". It's not Wikipedia's job to extrapolate from oil rates mentioned in news (that falls under original research), so we need to find a reliable source that says it's now the largest spill in US history or change the wording to "expected to be" or "may be". I also think "largest US oil disaster" should be changed to "largest US oil spill" for obvious neutrality reasons. TastyCakes (talk) 16:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
How about if the wording were changed to, "According to many independent experts, the spill has...", since by most estimates it has now exceeded the Exxon Valdez spill? Gandydancer (talk) 17:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
That's my point though: although there are articles from a while ago saying "it will become the biggest spill in the next few weeks", I haven't seen any that say "it is now the biggest". I might be wrong of course, please correct me if so. That said, I have changed the line to "The spill is thought to have eclipsed the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill as the largest in US history" which I think is an accurate and unbiased statement... TastyCakes (talk) 17:20, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
My beef was with the use of worst, given the longterm effects remain largely uncertain. I like the current edit of "The spill is thought to have eclipsed the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill as the largest in US history." I would also accept "expected" instead of "thought to have".--Labattblueboy (talk) 17:45, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree, it doesn't seem like anyone has demonstrated that it is "worse" than the Valdez at this point, even if it is bigger. TastyCakes (talk) 17:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
I found [1] which quotes a White House official as calling it "worst", then the article suggests it's due to location. I'm not sure that helps but I thought I'd post it. Thundermaker (talk) 17:56, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Hmm I see, that seems a little confusing since the Valdez was much closer to shore than the Deepwater Horizon... Presumably they mean the location is worse because it's closer to a lot of economic activity than the Valdez was. I don't think environmentally it has been shown to be worse than the Valdez was yet, at least not on shore... TastyCakes (talk) 18:25, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Something was incorrect in the volume numbers, which were set at 18,000,000. which would require 400,000 bbls a day, which is not credible. Even 70,000 bbls of oil is day is not credible, and the computation which came up with that number used the wrong ID for the riser ( He used the published OD of 21 inches, not the ID of 18.75, and assumed all the volume fraction was oil, rather than a gas oil mix. I would suggest the bounds of the federal report on estimated volumes be used, as that group had access to real data. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BakuMatt (talk • contribs) 17:08, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit Needed..."Largest Spill in US History"

(see #4 "Subjective "worst" claim) The Article states: "The spill is thought to have eclipsed the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill as the largest in US history." This is incorrect if you look at the Ixtoc I oil spill. It is said about the Ixtoc I: "On 3 June 1979, the well suffered a blowout and is recognized as the second largest oil spill and the largest accidental spill in history." The Ixtoc Oil Spill leaked 3,000,000 barrels (165 billion gallons). Even at the highest estimates, the DH is nowhere near that amount. It is true that the estimates have surpassed the Exxon Valdez oil spill. But there needs to be definition as to what is meant by "largest". The sentence implies largest volume which is incorrect. Also, considering the Ixtoc I happened in the Gulf of Mexico and did affect US beaches, it would still be incorrect to say "in US History".

Thanks. JP 5/27/10 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.32.181 (talk) 16:55, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The Ixtoc I spill/blowout remained largely in Mexican waters. As I understand it, the quantity of oil that did enter US waters was far less than that spilled by the Exxon Valdez or by the Deepwater horizon leak. I have also not seen any sources that express teh Ixtoc I as the largest in US history.--Labattblueboy (talk) 19:10, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
I concur with Labatt here. I don't think Ixtoc was actually an "american" oil spill. I will add though that the numbers for "oil spilled" are still a matter of debate. While I'm pretty sure this spill is larger than Valdez, I don't think there is consensus for this among RS. Perhaps calling it "largest" is premature? NickCT (talk) 20:43, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Ixtoc probably bears mentioning though, "largest oil spill in the US and second largest in the gulf of Mexico, after Ixtoc" or something like that. TastyCakes (talk) 20:52, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I walked ankle deep in oil "mousse" on the beaches of Corpus Christi from Ixtoc I. It highly impacted the Gulf of Mexico and created a widely dispersed dead zone of maritime toxicity. It did not "remain largely in Mexican waters" to the extent that it is to be erased from history by sweepers-under-rugs. Its volume DOES exceed the present volume of BP Deepwater Horizon. Cite the thing accurately in the article and quit trying to bury its existence. Mydogtrouble (talk) 02:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Worst and largest ?

I removed the statement from the lead that stated this is the worst oil spill in US history given that still appears to be a matter of opinion. Largest doesn't after all mean worst and we hadn't seen analysis regarding heavy crude (Valdez spill) vs. light/sweet crude (BP spill).

Secondly, do we have a general consensus that this is indeed the largest in US history? Before we insert that statement is best we give it some thought because it's kind of a big deal.--Labattblueboy (talk) 21:44, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

  • I agree that it's premature to refer to this as the "worst oil spill in US history", for all the reasons that were raised about the use of that term in the previous discussion of the issue. On the other hand, I do think we can & should now refer to it as the "largest" such spill, given the release of quasi-authoritative estimates on the total volume of oil that has been released. Cgingold (talk) 22:27, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I disagree entirely with your conclusions. You guys are sounding like some wishy-washy BP executives unable to understand the facts and make a decision. The facts are there that this oil spill IS ESTIMATED to be the WORST OIL SPILL IN US HISTORY. Sure there will today and always be questions about whether it is absolutely positively THE worst, and “worst” is not entirely definable here, but the facts are:
The US Geological Survey released estimates that this the “Deepwater Horizon spill in the Gulf of Mexico is the worst in U.S. history,” (Source: National Geographic, http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/05/100527-energy-nation-gulf-oil-spill-top-kill-obama/
“Figuring that the leak began when the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig sank to the gulf bottom April 22, and subtracting the oil siphoned from the leaking pipe and pumped onto a barge, the flow rate would mean that between 17 million and 27 million gallons of oil have polluted the gulf. The 1989 Exxon Valdez spill, by comparison, put 11 million gallons of oil along more than a thousand miles of Alaska's coastline.” Washington Post, Source: Washington Post, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/27/AR2010052701957.html?hpid=topnews
CNN reports Deepwater Horizon gusher called worst US oil spill to date
http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/05/27/explainer.worst.oil.spills/index.html
11 people were killed in the Deepwater Horizon incident. No other oil spill has had loss of life that I am aware of and surely not the Exxon Valdez. That adds to its “worst” definition.
What more evidence do you need of the seriousness of the spill? Maybe for the oil to start gurgling up your home faucet? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.148.73.133 (talk) 00:29, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
  • The problem is that "worst" is a subjective term. They probably mean "largest", but it could also mean most costly, or most environmentally damaging. Because of this, I think "largest" is still a better term than "worst": it is simply more precise. That doesn't seem "wishy washy" to me, it sounds more accurate, which is what we're looking for here. TastyCakes (talk) 00:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I am of the same opinion as Cgingold and TastyCakes. I think there is enough evidence to call this one the largest but that "worst" is a rather subjective term.--Labattblueboy (talk) 02:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

This complaint is also dealt with in two other talk sections (4 and 19) I have made minor edits on these comparative facts.

Mydogtrouble (talk) 03:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

  • We have a problem. This may be something to bring up in a discussion of what constitutes a "reliable source". Gandydancer reverted one of my edits because the reference didn't support it. I knew it did, so I went back and reverted the revert. But when I clicked on the link, it wasn't even the same article! How does a newspaper change an article that much? The second writer was now in the list of others who contributed, at the end of the article, and there was a new second writer. There was a new headline. The information I added to the article about sick fishermen wasn't there, so I knew Gandydancer had done the right thing and I reverted my revert of the revert. Furthermore, the lowest estimate of the size of the spill had changed, so I fixed it in the article. The source did not, however, state that the U.S. Geological Survey was involved in the lower and higher estimates, so I flagged them. The information looks like it would be reliable, but we just don't know where it came from. Whoever added the statement does.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 16:22, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
  • That citation/URL threw me, too. Upon closer inspection, I believe the problem is that the articles are only on the USA Today website, and may never appear in print. It looks like the USA Today website recycles at least some of its URLs with new or updated stories each day. Clearly these should be avoided in citations here on Wikipedia. Cgingold (talk) 01:36, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Looks good. I'm sorry my source (not USA Today but a local newspaper) never got used, but that's life. My actual newspaper has that updated version with the different second writer, and nothing about fishermen being sick.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 17:54, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
I started a discussion here should anyone wish to contribute. I should mention my article, which was the original subject of discussion, was not the one that was "only on the USA Today website". But I never thought a local newspaper would change an article so substantially and then keep the same URL.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:53, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Investigations: US Coast Guard/MMS Joint Investigation & summary edits

After massive and wildly premature "summary style" edits, I am rapidly losing interest in updating this article with the emerging facts from the Joint Investigation. I don't need lectures on Wikipedia style, I need fellow editors to discuss such cleaver-sized cuts, not scalpel-sized copy edits, here, and beforehand.

This is not yet history, this is news, like it or not. This article will be newsy for awhile yet. It will not resemble an article on WWI battles for a long time. Telling quotes and contextual explanation of technical terms used in testimony are highly appropriate at this time, if Wikipedia as a source for this ever-expanding news story is to be relevant. I suggest a sub-section for US Coast Guard/MMS Joint Investigation, which I can then flesh out as I have attempted to do, eventually to split into its own article, if need be. This is exactly what we see with the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster, which has a separate article for the Rogers Commission Report.

Don't kill history with premature summary edits.

Paulscrawl (talk) 14:44, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Re "summary style" edits, I strongly agree. Twice I have added quotes from lawmakers from the testimony going on in congressional hearings and they have been deleted. At present there is no mention in the article that congress has even been hearing testimony - perhaps because it has come down to the general public in the form of quotes from angry congressional representatives. I am not sure why some editors are so reluctant to use quotes and I hope that is because they fear that they sound tabloid-like and not because they have been so harsh of BP. Gandydancer (talk) 15:34, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Just because another editor removed something doesn't mean you should necessarily give up on it and say to yourself, "Oh, well - I guess that's settled then." You are free to restore deleted passages if you feel that you can make a good case for them. And any editor who deletes passages should likewise be able to make a good case for doing so. When necessary, issues are brought to the Talk Page for discussion, and to see what other editors think. Cgingold (talk) 20:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Deepwater Horizon organization chart. Legend: Underway Mode: Master is in charge. Drilling mode: Offshore installation manager (OIM) is in Charge

I don't doubt their good intentions or neutral point of view; I believe these summary style deletions are the results of their justifiable concern with the article size (see so-named Discussion section above) and Wikipedia's encyclopedic summary style. I've read it, I get it. But splitting articles is the way to address the former concern (let's start with Atlantis Oil Field safety practices and the explosion sections, and make provision via sub-sections for sub articles on the several independent investigations). Time will take care of the latter, when historical perspective is called for. Not yet: we are still living this news; it is not yet history, alas.

Today, it is all news and newsworthy quotes are apropos. There are many Wikipedia articles concerned with current events that will, in this very now, appropriately have telling, pithy, pertinent and even damning quotes which may eventually, with the hindsight of history, be deleted for summary style. Then again, good writers and readers and editors might agree that it is wise to retain or even highlight some quotes, as in the article linked above or to your right, for their historic interest and pithy summary. That's right, quotes themselves can be a summative assessment! At present, deleting really apt quotes would be premature here. This is like the Watergate hearings -- history in the making. Some quotes matter mightily. How about this one?

  1. ^ David Hammer (2010-05-26). "Hearings: BP representative overruled drillers, insisted on displacing mud with seawater". Times-Picayune. Retrieved 2010-05-28.

Paulscrawl (talk) 16:34, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

P.S. -- I could work on a suitably detailed draft in my user space, if preferred, before creating a separate article for U.S. Coast Guard / Mineral Management Service Joint Investigation, summarized and linked to from here. What I can't do is waste my time and yours. Paulscrawl (talk) 19:08, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

As for splitting off articles, I believe it will undoubtedly make sense very soon to have a separate article dealing with all of the ongoing investigations, with separate sections for each. Cgingold (talk) 20:23, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
So I see. A good historian, and well respected, but this ain't yet history. I'll be working on my vision for this section -- and soon to be article -- this weekend, in my sandbox. Input welcomed. Paulscrawl (talk) 20:26, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I'm puzzling over these words: "A good historian, and well respected". Am I missing something? Cgingold (talk) 20:42, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps. Respect. He has a few well-deserved Barnstars for some WWI articles. Paulscrawl (talk) 03:47, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, one article for all investigations, with separate sections for each, more useful and manageable than separate articles for each. Also avoids massive article-naming headaches. Paulscrawl (talk) 20:29, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
  • My use of summary style edits is largely out of necessity, due to the article size. At 120K+, this article is large and I have noticed rendering delays and difficultly in making quick edits due to loading time. I couldn't only imagine what a slower connection is dealing with. For an article that is getting this level of coverage, accessibility is key. The article doesn't always have room for lengthy quotes, where a sub-article might. I am entirely supportive of splitting, I think we are fast approaching that point. Given the number of investigations, inquires and commissions examining the matter, I suspect the Investigation section would be a good candidate for an article split.--Labattblueboy (talk) 21:50, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
I did not doubt your intentions, only their effect on my contributions and the article's relevance. Good to know you entirely support splitting, and I can only hope you now entirely support discussing such major changes as section moves and your not-so well documented summary style edits on the aptly-named Discussion page before making such changes in the future, as this seems to have been an issue for you, one you have acknowledged and vowed to correct. I mean this with all due respect to you as an experienced editor (I've only been posting under my Username since ~2001): I especially appreciate your energy and diligence in removing unneeded external links.
May I suggest we leave your summaries of investigations in place while I work on what I consider to be needed details -- human names and technical terms -- for Deepwater Horizons oil spill Investigations sub-article this weekend? In the meantime, I leave it to more experienced editors such as yourself and esp. Cgingold to prune sections immediately prunable from an article entitled Deepwater Horizon oil spill -- 1) the explosion itself, 2) U.S. and Canadian offshore drilling policy, & 3) Atlantis Oil Field safety practices

. One sentence summary and link should do it for latter two.

As Cgingold acknowledged in previous discussion just cited, summary edits are a difficult and a thankless task. Thank you, but please slow down. They are certainly needed here, but not until we have the infrastructure in place to preserve the details that matter. We learned a lot of new personal names of consequence and weird uses of familiar words (to me at least, thank God ;) like deep throat, as well as unfamiliar words from the Watergate hearings. We will certainly learn more personal names and technical terms in the next few days and months ahead. This is not an attack on a valuable editor, only a plea for collaboration, so that I, too, may become a more valuable editor. Thank you. Paulscrawl (talk) 23:04, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 67.100.104.34, 28 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} We need a section on the Oil Spill Syndrome all the workers are getting. below is a short excerpt from the below link for a news article to start with. Oil Spill Syndrome is real and the article should mention it. INMHO

According to Clint Guidry, president of the Louisiana Shrimp Association:

.....If you would do your research, the same situation occurred with Exxon Valdez over twenty years ago. It is a question of liability. The minute BP declares that there is a respiratory danger on the situation is the day that they let the door open for liability suits down the line. If they could have gotten away with covering this up, like they did in Alaska Valdez situation, like Exxon, they would not have to pay a penny for any kind of health-related claims....(source; democracy now)

The oil and chemicals are not only beginning to make the clean-up workers sick, but it will have long term health consequences for the people of the Gulf.

The odor is so bad that Guidry reports:

....The closest I got was Venice, Louisiana, and you could smell it from Venice. At the time I was down there, they were actually spraying Corexit 9527A on the oil spill on top of the water and spraying all around—Venice sits on a peninsula, the Mississippi River, right at the—right above the Head of the Passes. And they were actually spraying this Corexit in the air all around where people were living, with kids and children, and continuously saying how safe it was, which is incorrect....(source)

Just like what occurred after the Sept, 11th attacks, brave workers are doing what they can to try to help in a disaster. These workers will likely have to suffer for years and years, just like those workers of 9/11 did. Some might even die from their clean-up efforts. But these workers are knowingly risking their health and maybe even their lives.

Guidry says, "I spoke to several individuals. It was a choice between not paying the bills and having food for their families and maybe taking a chance of getting sick."

http://beforeitsnews.com/news/50/773/Fishermen_Hospitalized:_BP_Not_Allowing_Clean-Up_Workers_to_Use_Respirators.html


67.100.104.34 (talk) 15:21, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Goodman interviewed Guidry on Democracy Now on May 27: http://www.democracynow.org/2010/5/27/coast_guard_grounds_ships_involved_in Gandydancer (talk) 16:38, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Not done: You did not make clear the changes you wanted made. Try writing out the section instead of recommending a generic idea if you're going to use the {{editsemiprotected}} template. Also denied because your reference is what I'd consider "unreliable" (overtly bias). If would like to explain more or need help just leave a post on my Talk page. Spitfire19 T/C 18:42, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

WebMD was on this month ago: http://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20100430/deepwater-horizon-oil-spill-could-affect-health

LA Times: http://articles.latimes.com/2010/may/26/nation/la-na-oil-workers-sick-20100526

Today, Congressman asking President for health care action: http://www.melancon.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1520:rep-melancon-to-join-president-obama-for-briefing-at-coast-guard-command-station&catid=58:2010-press-releases&Itemid=19

Paulscrawl (talk) 19:18, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I want to make it clear that I was not supporting this anon poster or the info. I actually questioned how reliable this info could be...time will tell... Gandydancer (talk) 19:55, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Ya, seems like judging the allegations' importance to the big picture would be impossible at this point. If it becomes a big issue in the lawsuits that follow, then it's time to put something about it in. TastyCakes (talk) 20:01, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
The ref used for this addition does not mention it and I can't find info on the web. I will remove it until someone can get a reference, if there is one. Gandydancer (talk) 09:57, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

New York Times: "great oil spill of 2010"

possible new name for the oil spill?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/29/science/earth/29plume.html?hp

Sandeylife (talk) 13:54, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Reported explosions and resulting collapse of the sea floor

There have been reports since the 24th of May that there have been numerous explosions and what appears to be oil gushing from the sea floor. Can anyone confirm this and add it to the article if it's true that the seabed has collapsed around the BOP? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.77.111.9 (talk) 19:19, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

so has the "top kill" procedure worked or not?

I keep hearing a lot of conflicting reports. Some sources claim that the flow of oil has stopped, while others say otherwise. How are we supposed to know which sources are correct? --Ixfd64 (talk) 23:22, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

If you believe BP, the fluid coming out of the well is now mostly mud, not oil. I would guess that is what sources mean when they say the flow of oil has stopped: however obviously something is still coming out of the well. TastyCakes (talk) 23:34, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Well according to this CNN article, Top Kill is a failure. It quotes senior BP guys saying that they're moving on to other options. Looks pretty legit to me. More news about this is likely to appear over the next couple of days or so. --Xyiyizi 00:06, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Pardon my big mouth! This information is already in the article, it seems. Kindly ignore me :) --Xyiyizi 00:10, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Ya, since I posted that (or maybe a little before) they came out and said it wasn't working. TastyCakes (talk) 06:44, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Public Opinion

In the public opinion section, the first statistic is a poll about President Obama's handling of the spill. It is followed by a poll about BP's handling of the spill. If it is BP's spill, shouldn't the BP statistic be placed first? 67.83.97.88 (talk) 01:25, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree. It is out of place. The article should tell the reader why a public opinion on Obama is relevant here (NPOV!). There is no connection to the rest of the text, with Obama being mentioned only once further up. Maybe a section "political response" can help. --91.32.92.220 (talk) 14:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

How much of the sea can catch on fire?

That image of the controlled burn is truly remarkable. Now that weeks have passed and so much more oil has come out, I have to wonder: how much of the sea could catch on fire at once if, say, a controlled burn became an uncontrolled burn? Wnt (talk) 06:38, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposed rename to Gulf of Mexico oil spill

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Discussion closed since there is already one rename discussion underway. Let that one finish before a second one is opened. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:49, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Deepwater Horizon oil spill → Gulf of Mexico oil spill — I believe it would be most appropriate to rename this page to Gulf of Mexico oil spill based on the fact that although the sinking of the Deepwater Horizon was the start of this disaster, the ship did not in fact carry any oil, therefore to infer that the ship spilt oil is incorrect. Also, it is very clear based on media coverage and public opinion that this disaster is most often refered to by its location and not by its starting point. Also, even though there is still on-going discussion on the use of "oil spill" versus "blowout", I would still suggest approving this rename as either Gulf of Mexico oil spill or Gulf of Mexico blowout would still be more appropriate then any Deepwater Horizon variant. Jcarle (talk) 04:18, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

  • Oppose/Support (read on!) First of all, what ship? "Deepwater Horizon" was the name of the drilling rig. There was no ship involved. So, "Deepwater Horizon" does, in effect, refer to the location: it occurred at the drilling rig "Deepwater Horizon" in the Gulf of Mexico. (Btw, the Exxon Valdez oil spill, perhaps the most famous oil spill in the world until now, was named after the ship that sprung a leak.) Secondly, "Gulf of Mexico oil spill" is much too vague. Another oil spill could (or perhaps already has) happen(ed) in the Gulf of Mexico, what then? Besides being unique (and more accurate), "Deepwater Horizon" has a memorable, almost foreboding, zing to it. In the future, people will look up the famous name and find the broader context in the article. OK. Here's where I agree with you: I would like to see this page moved to Deepwater Horizon oil disaster - as this title would include the explosion that caused the whole predicament. This is an important distinction because, as you have said, it was not merely an "oil spill" or "leak" (a la Exxon Valdez). Disaster is a better umbrella word than "blowout" because it includes the blowout and the spill. Wikkitywack (talk) 06:12, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Edit request from Moehrchen, 30 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

Link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macondo_Prospect

Moehrchen (talk) 12:22, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Already done The first mention of Macondo Prospect is wikilinked to that article. Celestra (talk) 14:48, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

BP acknowledges 5,000 barrel per day estimate is wrong?

It seems BP is acknowledging that their 5,000 barrel per day spill flow rate estimate was incorrect, according to the link below. By saying the estimate came from government satellite images, they look to be distancing themselves from it. Should the 5,000 barrel estimate be taken out or shown that even BP doesn't agree with it now? It should be noted that the government claims that the 5,000 came from BP themselves. Link. Patken4 (talk) 18:14, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

In addition, BP says they are recovering 5,000 barrels per day. I haven't seen a source saying they are recovering all the oil that is leaking out. Link. Patken4 (talk) 20:56, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Using your link, I added some info in the spill rate section. Re your second post, this info was lost in a revision - you just can't keep everything! User:GandydancerGandydancer (talk) 21:32, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

U.S History

As a british person who is reading this article I feel slightly insulted that it says 'worst offshore oil spill in US history'. This takes into account that it is a spill off a British oil rig and also that it is not only on the US coast but also Mexico and Cuba. If someone could change this, I would be grateful 82.36.227.171(talk) 22:36, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the issue is. It's the biggest spill in US history, in the sense that it's the biggest spill that primarily affected US waters and coastline. The larger Ixtoc I spill in 1979 was also in the Gulf of Mexico but further south, and primarily affected Mexico. There was also a larger spill in Iraq, as part of the first Gulf war. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 06:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Also if you want to get technical it's a Swiss oil rig, and having a giant oil spill lapping your shores seems like a pretty silly thing to be jealous about. TastyCakes (talk) 15:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
So are you saying that a British oil corporation has been responsible for an even worse disaster? If not, if you want the UK to take ownership of this mess, be my guest. Just let us know where you want us to send the bill for the cleanup & damages -- & the convicted felons. -- llywrch (talk) 20:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Easy Solution

Simply let the shaft cave in, and the sea floor will fill in and bury it all. But the shaft was expensive to drill, and they want to keep it intact. 173.169.90.98 (talk) 23:01, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

why is it let to blow oil without protection ?

What puzzles me is we live in the age of plastics, and its only 2000 meter deep. I can go to a repair shop buy plastic like 100m on roll 7m width Just do that 20x times and I can make a long tube with some glu, Then just place the tube on the oil spil area. so the oil spill will not mix anymore but stay at a single location Its so simple, doesnt require advanced robots, and can be ready in a few days. Its not a permanent fix i know but it will end the flow of spreading oil contamination of the sea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.217.115.160 (talk) 23:39, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Try doing that with the oil coming out at 10,000 psi pressure or whatever it is. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 06:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Well i never said the tube should be small, (then high presure becomes a problem) use a wide tube; its the same as industrial high-presure painting pistols, you shouldn't keep your fingers at their paint nozzle because it will blow a hole in your finger. However if you take some distance then there is no problem at all, and painters can work with it. The same goes up here, such a tube shape screen if wide enough will not interact with the pressure, and only act as a wall so the oil wouldn't spread passed the screen. The collumn of the tube will contain a lot of oil and of course they should drain the oil out of it on top. Seams still simple to me. 82.217.115.160 (talk) ~~ 82.217.115.160 (talk) 11:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
It sounds like you're describing something like the Cofferdam which was BPs first effort at containing the spill. As you might recall the problem was gas hydrates built up in it and the flow couldn't be channeled to the surface. TastyCakes (talk) 18:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
If you, or anyone else, has suggestions on how to stop the leak, please visit this website and by filling out this form. According to the first website, you will be contacted if they feel your suggestion is feasible. Thanks! Patken4 (talk) 18:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
I should mention that the methane clathrate article now contains some information about the trouble with the clathrate build-up; it also describes ideas to dissolve clathrates with methanol or to prevent them from forming with antifreeze. I assume the BP drillers must have considered and ruled out such options (or that they failed), which would be an interesting story for someone to add either here or at that other article. Wnt (talk) 14:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I believe BP tried spraying glycol and hot water in with the oil/gas, but it was apparently not enough to stop the formation. That and they'd have to do it continuously, which doesn't seem very practical. TastyCakes (talk) 20:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit summaries -- one edit at a time, please, and well summarized

"I am sorry if you find my edits difficult to follow. I have started expanding my details a bit further. If they remain an issue please return to my attention." --Labattblueboy (talk) 07:58, 28 May 2010 (UTC) as cited in above Discussion

Glad to see you back with much-needed work on this article but, since you asked, I find the following multiple edit summary difficult to follow or, frankly, trust without double checking diffs, which I hate to waste time doing with trusted editors such as yourself: "->Spill flow rate: FRTG not a common acronym, move Meet the press data upwards and fold into text (add NYT as an additional source) - removing quoted text"

No issues with the change, and perhaps not the best example, but I hope everyone gets my point. One edit at a time, please, and that goes for ALL of us. Edit summaries don't appear in searches and can't be changed. I know it's not easy, but Cgingold does manage to summarize multiple, discrete, and sequential edits in exemplary fashion and those edit summaries don't force me to check diffs on a very controversial and rapidly changing news article. I'm learning a lot here, as can we all. Perhaps an edit summary template is needed here.

Thanks for making the extra effort to being crystal clear and revertible in your edits -- I truly appreciate your energy and contributions. I hope we can all be so forthright and formidable. Regards Paulscrawl (talk) 03:39, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

My edits are already single section edits and employ the entire text of the edit summary. I think it's a bit unreasonable to ask to break up each one into individual edits when they involve the same section or correcting the same issue across a number of sections. If you want to go through a conflict resolution process to find a fair resolution that isn't focused simply on me, I'd be happy to do so. My happy middle grould would possibly see others pick up some more of the referencing and copy editing work and frankly until then I don't think it's fair to ask more, strictly of me. Slamming everything on me is not entirely fair and if that's the route this section discussion is going, I'm not participating in it.--Labattblueboy (talk) 04:13, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Regarding origins of the live feed

This edit removed the origins and demands for there to be a live feed. It is significant to note that a live feed exists in the first place because of the criticism BP received in not helping with independent monitoring of the oil spill. I don't want to readd it without discussion because of so many edits happening all over the place but did want to get some reasoning behind it since the explanation given "(ref clean up, ad titles and citation information. live feel already mentioned - move some text to flow section)" doesn't address this. GaussianCopula (talk) 05:59, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The BP, United States House Select Committee on Energy Independence or Senator Bill Nelson's feeds are all ok by me (they all seem to have an official designation). The BP feed is the original and largest in terms of video size but I don't really have a preference of the three.--Labattblueboy (talk) 15:45, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

RE: "Deepwater Horizon oil spill" - One crew member's detailed account of events

60 Minutes CBS transcript from "Blowout: The Deepwater Horizon Disaster" aired on May 16, 2010, on CBS 60 Minutes:

CBS video "60 Minutes" May 16, 2010 full show

(reported by Scott Pelley; produced by Graham Messick and Solly Granatstein)...

The gusher unleashed in the Gulf of Mexico continues to spew crude oil. There are no reliable estimates of how much oil is pouring into the gulf. But it comes to many millions of gallons since the catastrophic blowout. Eleven men were killed in the explosions that sank one of the most sophisticated drilling rigs in the world, the "Deepwater Horizon."

This week Congress continues its investigation, but Capitol Hill has not heard from the man "60 Minutes" correspondent Scott Pelley met: Mike Williams, one of the last crewmembers to escape the inferno.

[Scott Pelley narrates]...

He says the destruction of the Deepwater Horizon had been building for weeks in a series of mishaps. The night of the disaster, he was in his workshop when he heard the rig's engines suddenly run wild. That was the moment that explosive gas was shooting across the decks, being sucked into the engines that powered the rig's generators. [continued...]

Full Transcript, continued

"I hear the engines revving. The lights are glowing. I'm hearing the alarms. I mean, they're at a constant state now. It's just, 'Beep, beep, beep, beep, beep.' It doesn't stop. But even that's starting to get drowned out by the sound of the engine increasing in speed. And my lights get so incredibly bright that they physically explode. I'm pushing my way back from the desk when my computer monitor exploded," Williams told Pelley.

The rig was destroyed on the night of April 20. Ironically, the end was coming only months after the rig's greatest achievement.

Mike Williams was the chief electronics technician in charge of the rig's computers and electrical systems. And seven months before, he had helped the crew drill the deepest oil well in history, 35,000 feet.

"It was special. There's no way around it. Everyone was talking about it. The congratulations that were flowing around, it made you feel proud to work there," he remembered.

Williams worked for the owner, Transocean, the largest offshore drilling company. Like its sister rigs, the Deepwater Horizon cost $350 million, rose 378 feet from bottom to top. Both advanced and safe, none of her 126 crew had been seriously injured in seven years.

The safety record was remarkable, because offshore drilling today pushes technology with challenges matched only by the space program.

Deepwater Horizon was in 5,000 feet of water and would drill another 13,000 feet, a total of three miles. The oil and gas down there are under enormous pressure. And the key to keeping that pressure under control is this fluid that drillers call "mud."

"Mud" is a manmade drilling fluid that's pumped down the well and back up the sides in continuous circulation. The sheer weight of this fluid keeps the oil and gas down and the well under control.

The tension in every drilling operation is between doing things safely and doing them fast; time is money and this job was costing BP a million dollars a day. But Williams says there was trouble from the start - getting to the oil was taking too long.

Williams said they were told it would take 21 days; according to him, it actually took six weeks.

With the schedule slipping, Williams says a BP manager ordered a faster pace.

"And he requested to the driller, 'Hey, let's bump it up. Let's bump it up.' And what he was talking about there is he's bumping up the rate of penetration. How fast the drill bit is going down," Williams said.

Williams says going faster caused the bottom of the well to split open, swallowing tools and that drilling fluid called "mud."

"We actually got stuck. And we got stuck so bad we had to send tools down into the drill pipe and sever the pipe," Williams explained.

That well was abandoned and Deepwater Horizon had to drill a new route to the oil. It cost BP more than two weeks and millions of dollars.

"We were informed of this during one of the safety meetings, that somewhere in the neighborhood of $25 million was lost in bottom hole assembly and 'mud.' And you always kind of knew that in the back of your mind when they start throwing these big numbers around that there was gonna be a push coming, you know? A push to pick up production and pick up the pace," Williams said.

Asked if there was pressure on the crew after this happened, Williams told Pelley, "There's always pressure, but yes, the pressure was increased."

But the trouble was just beginning: when drilling resumed, Williams says there was an accident on the rig that has not been reported before. He says, four weeks before the explosion, the rig's most vital piece of safety equipment was damaged.

Down near the seabed is the blowout preventer, or BOP. It's used to seal the well shut in order to test the pressure and integrity of the well, and, in case of a blowout, it's the crew's only hope. A key component is a rubber gasket at the top called an "annular," which can close tightly around the drill pipe.

Williams says, during a test, they closed the gasket. But while it was shut tight, a crewman on deck accidentally nudged a joystick, applying hundreds of thousands of pounds of force, and moving 15 feet of drill pipe through the closed blowout preventer. Later, a man monitoring drilling fluid rising to the top made a troubling find.

"He discovered chunks of rubber in the drilling fluid. He thought it was important enough to gather this double handful of chunks of rubber and bring them into the driller shack. I recall asking the supervisor if this was out of the ordinary. And he says, 'Oh, it's no big deal.' And I thought, 'How can it be not a big deal? There's chunks of our seal is now missing,'" Williams told Pelley.

And, Williams says, he knew about another problem with the blowout preventer.

The BOP is operated from the surface by wires connected to two control pods; one is a back-up. Williams says one pod lost some of its function weeks before.

Transocean tells us the BOP was tested by remote control after these incidents and passed. But nearly a mile below, there was no way to know how much damage there was or whether the pod was unreliable.

In the hours before the disaster, Deepwater Horizon's work was nearly done. All that was left was to seal the well closed. The oil would be pumped out by another rig later. Williams says, that during a safety meeting, the manager for the rig owner, Transocean, was explaining how they were going to close the well when the manager from BP interrupted.

"I had the BP company man sitting directly beside me. And he literally perked up and said 'Well my process is different. And I think we're gonna do it this way.' And they kind of lined out how he thought it should go that day. So there was short of a chest-bumping kind of deal. The communication seemed to break down as to who was ultimately in charge," Williams said.

On the day of the accident, several BP managers were on the Deepwater Horizon for a ceremony to congratulate the crew for seven years without an injury. While they where there, a surge of explosive gas came flying up the well from three miles below. The rig's diesel engines which power its electric generators sucked in the gas and began to run wild.

"I'm hearing hissing. Engines are over-revving. And then all of a sudden, all the lights in my shop just started getting brighter and brighter and brighter. And I knew then something bad was getting ready to happen," Williams told Pelley.

It was almost ten at night. And directly under the Deepwater Horizon there were four men in a fishing boat, Albert Andry, Dustin King, Ryan Chaisson and Westley Bourg.

"When I heard the gas comin' out, I knew exactly what it was almost immediately," Bourg recalled.

"When the gas cloud was descending on you, what was that like?" Pelley asked.

"It was scary. And when I looked at it, it burned my eyes. And I knew we had to get out of there," Andry recalled.

Andry said he knew the gas was methane.

On the rig, Mike Williams was reaching for a door to investigate the engine noise.

"These are three inch thick, steel, fire-rated doors with six stainless steel hinges supporting 'em on the frame. As I reach for the handle, I heard this awful hissing noise, this whoosh. And at the height of the hiss, a huge explosion. The explosion literally rips the door from the hinges, hits, impacts me and takes me to the other side of the shop. And I'm up against a wall, when I finally come around, with a door on top of me. And I remember thinking to myself, 'You know, this, this is it. I'm gonna die right here,'" Williams remembered.

Meanwhile, the men on the fishing boat had a camera, capturing the flames on the water.

"I began to crawl across the floor. As I got to the next door, it exploded. And took me, the door, and slid me about 35 feet backwards again. And planted me up against another wall. At that point, I actually got angry. I was mad at the doors. I was mad that these fire doors that are supposed to protect me are hurting me. And at that point, I made a decision. 'I'm going to get outside. I may die out there, but I'm gonna get outside.' So I crawl across the grid work of the floor and make my way to that opening, where I see the light. I made it out the door and I thought to myself, 'I've accomplished what I set out to accomplish. I made it outside. At least now I can breathe. I may die out here, but I can breathe,'" Williams said.

Williams couldn't see; something was pouring into his eyes and that's when he noticed a gash in his forehead.

"I didn't know if it was blood. I didn't know if it was brains. I didn't know if it was flesh. I didn't know what it was. I just knew there was, I was, I was in trouble. At that point I grabbed a lifejacket, I was on the aft lifeboat deck there were two functioning lifeboats at my disposal right there. But I knew I couldn't board them. I had responsibilities," he remembered.

His responsibility was to report to the bridge, the rig's command center.

"I'm hearing alarms. I'm hearing radio chatter, 'May day! May day! We've lost propulsion! We've lost power! We have a fire! Man overboard on the starboard forward deck,'" Williams remembered.

Williams says that, on the bridge, he watched them try to activate emergency systems. "The BOP that was supposed to protect us and keep us from the blowout obviously had failed. And now, the emergency disconnect to get us away from this fuel source has failed. We have no communications to the BOP," he explained.

"And I see one of the lifeboats in the water, and it's motoring away from the vessel. I looked at the captain and asked him. I said, 'What's going on?' He said, 'I've given the order to abandon ship,'" Williams said.

Every Sunday they had practiced lifeboat drills and the procedure for making sure everyone was accounted for. But in the panic all that went to hell. The lifeboats were leaving.

"They're leaving without you?" Pelley asked.

"They have left, without the captain and without knowing that they had everyone that had survived all this onboard. I've been left now by two lifeboats. And I look at the captain and I said, 'What do we do now? By now, the fire is not only on the derrick, it's starting to spread to the deck. At that point, there were several more explosions, large, intense explosions," Williams said.

Asked what they felt and sounded like, Williams said, "It's just take-your-breath-away type explosions, shake your body to the core explosions. Take your vision away from the percussion of the explosions."

About eight survivors were left on the rig. They dropped an inflatable raft from a crane, but with only a few survivors on the raft, it was launched, leaving Williams, another man, and a crewwoman named Andrea.

"I remember looking at Andrea and seeing that look in her eyes. She had quit. She had given up. I remember her saying, 'I'm scared.' And I said, 'It's okay to be scared. I'm scared too.' She said, 'What are we gonna do?' I said, 'We're gonna burn up. Or we're gonna jump,'" Williams remembered.

Williams estimates it was a 90-100 foot jump down.

In the middle of the night, with blood in his eyes, fire at his back and the sea ten stories below, Williams made his choice.

"I remember closing my eyes and sayin' a prayer, and asking God to tell my wife and my little girl that Daddy did everything he could and if, if I survive this, it's for a reason. I made those three steps, and I pushed off the end of the rig. And I fell for what seemed like forever. A lotta things go through your mind," he remembered.

With a lifejacket, Williams jumped feet first off the deck and away from the inferno. He had witnessed key events before the disaster. But if he was going to tell anyone, he would have to survive a ten-story drop into the sea.

"I went down way, way below the surface, obviously. And when I popped back up, I felt like, 'Okay, I've made it.' But I feel this God-awful burning all over me. And I'm thinking, 'Am I on fire?' You know, I just don't know. So I start doin' the only thing I know to do, swim. I gotta start swimmin', I gotta get away from this thing. I could tell I was floatin' in oil and grease and, and diesel fuel. I mean, it's just the smell and the feel of it," Williams remembered.

"And I remember lookin' under the rig and seein' the water on fire. And I thought, 'What have you done? You were dry, and you weren't covered in oil up there, now you've jumped and you've made this, and you've landed in oil. The fire's gonna come across the water, and you're gonna burn up.' And I thought, 'You just gotta swim harder.' So I swam, and I kicked and I swam and I kicked and I swam as hard as I could until I remember not feelin' any more pain, and I didn't hear anything. And I thought, 'Well, I must have burned up, 'cause I don't feel anything, I don't hear anything, I don't smell anything. I must be dead.' And I remember a real faint voice of, 'Over here, over here.' I thought, 'What in the world is that?' And the next thing I know, he grabbed my lifejacket and flipped me over into this small open bow boat. I didn't know who he was, I didn't know where he'd come from, I didn't care. I was now out of the water," he added.

Williams' survival may be critical to the investigation. We took his story to Dr. Bob Bea, a professor of engineering at the University of California, Berkeley.

Last week, the White House asked Bea to help analyze the Deepwater Horizon accident. Bea investigated the Columbia Space Shuttle disaster for NASA and the Hurricane Katrina disaster for the National Science Foundation. Bea's voice never completely recovered from the weeks he spent in the flood in New Orleans. But as the White House found, he's among the nation's best, having investigated more than 20 offshore rig disasters.

"Mr. Williams comes forward with these very detailed elements from his viewpoint on a rig. That's a brave and intelligent man," Bea told Pelley.

"What he's saying is very important to this investigation, you believe?" Pelley asked.

"It is," the professor replied.

What strikes Bea is Williams' description of the blowout preventer. Williams says in a drilling accident four weeks before the explosion, the critical rubber gasket, called an "annular," was damaged and pieces of it started coming out of the well.

"According to Williams, when parts of the annular start coming up on the deck someone from Transocean says, ‘Look, don't worry about it.' What does that tell you?" Pelley asked.

"Houston we have a problem," Bea replied.

Here's why that's so important: the annular is used to seal the well for pressure tests. And those tests determine whether dangerous gas is seeping in.

"So if the annular is damaged, if I understand you correctly, you can't do the pressure tests in a reliable way?" Pelley asked.

"That's correct. You may get pressure test recordings, but because you're leaking pressure, they are not reliable," Bea explained.

Williams also told us that a backup control system to the blowout preventer called a pod had lost some of its functions.

"What is the standard operating procedure if you lose one of the control pods?" Pelley asked.

"Reestablish it, fix it. It's like losing one of your legs," Bea said.

"The morning of the disaster, according to Williams, there was an argument in front of all the men on the ship between the Transocean manager and the BP manager. Do you know what that argument is about?" Pelley asked.

Bea replied, "Yes," telling Pelley the argument was about who was the boss.

In finishing the well, the plan was to have a subcontractor, Halliburton, place three concrete plugs, like corks, in the column. The Transocean manager wanted to do this with the column full of heavy drilling fluid - what drillers call "mud" - to keep the pressure down below contained. But the BP manager wanted to begin to remove the "mud" before the last plug was set. That would reduce the pressure controlling the well before the plugs were finished.

Asked why BP would do that, Bea told Pelley, "It expedites the subsequent steps."

"It's a matter of going faster," Pelley remarked.

"Faster, sure," Bea replied.

Bea said BP had won that argument.

"If the 'mud' had been left in the column, would there have been a blowout?" Pelley asked.

"It doesn't look like it," Bea replied.

To do it BP's way, they had to be absolutely certain that the first two plugs were keeping the pressure down. That life or death test was done using the blowout preventer which Mike Williams says had a damaged gasket.

Investigators have also found the BOP had a hydraulic leak and a weak battery.

"Weeks before the disaster they know they are drilling in a dangerous formation, the formation has told them that," Pelley remarked.

"Correct," Bea replied.

"And has cost them millions of dollars. And the blowout preventer is broken in a number of ways," Pelley remarked.

"Correct," Bea replied.

Asked what would be the right thing to do at that point, Bea said, "I express it to my students this way, 'Stop, think, don't do something stupid.'"

They didn't stop. As the drilling fluid was removed, downward pressure was relieved; the bottom plug failed. The blowout preventer didn't work. And 11 men were incinerated; 115 crewmembers survived.

And two days later, the Deepwater Horizon sank to the bottom.

This was just the latest disaster for a company that is the largest oil producer in the United States. BP, once known as British Petroleum, was found willfully negligent in a 2005 Texas refinery explosion that killed of its 15 workers. BP was hit with $108 million in fines - the highest workplace safety fines in U.S. history.

Now, there is new concern about another BP facility in the Gulf: a former BP insider tells us the platform "Atlantis" is a greater threat than the Deepwater Horizon.

Ken Abbott has worked for Shell and GE. And in 2008 he was hired by BP to manage thousands of engineering drawings for the Atlantis platform.

"They serve as blueprints and also as a operator manual, if you will, on how to make this work, and more importantly how to shut it down in an emergency," Abbott explained.

But he says he found that 89 percent of those critical drawings had not been inspected and approved by BP engineers. Even worse, he says 95 percent of the underwater welding plans had never been approved either.

"Are these welding procedures supposed to be approved in the paperwork before the welds are done?" Pelley asked.

"Absolutely. Yeah," Abbott replied. “They’re critical."

Abbott's charges are backed up by BP internal e-mails. In 2008, BP manager Barry Duff wrote that the lack of approved drawings could result in "catastrophic operator errors," and "currently there are hundreds if not thousands of Subsea documents that have never been finalized."

Duff called the practice "fundamentally wrong."

"I've never seen this kind of attitude, where safety doesn't seem to matter and when you complain of a problem like Barry did and like I did and try to fix it, you're just criticized and pushed aside," Abbott said.

Abbott was laid off. He took his concerns to a consumer advocacy group called Food & Water Watch. They're asking Congress to investigate. And he is filing suit in an attempt to force the federal government to shut down Atlantis.

"The Atlantis is still pumping away out there, 200,000 barrels a day, and it will be four times that in a year or two when they put in all 16 wells. If something happens there, it will make the Deepwater Horizon look like a bubble in the water by comparison," Abbott said.

In an e-mail, BP told us the Atlantis crew has all the documents it needs to run the platform safely. We also wanted BP's perspective on the Deepwater Horizon disaster.

The company scheduled an interview with its CEO, Tony Hayward. Then, they cancelled, saying no one at BP could sit down with "60 Minutes" for this report.

In other interviews, Hayward says this about Transocean, the owner of the Deepwater Horizon: "The responsibility for safety on the drilling rig is with Transocean. It is their rig, their equipment, their people, their systems, their safety processes."

"When BP's chief executive Tony Hayward says, 'This is Transocean’s accident,' what do you say?" Pelley asked Professor Bea.

"I get sick. This kind of division in the industry is a killer. The industry is comprised of many organizations. And they all share the responsibility for successful operations. And to start placing, we'll call it these barriers, and pointing fingers at each other, is totally destructive," he replied.

Asked who is responsible for the Deepwater Horizon accident, Bea said, "BP."

We went out on the Gulf and found mats of thick floating oil. No one has a fix on how much oil is shooting out of the well. But some of the best estimates suggest it's the equivalent of the Exxon Valdez spill every four to seven days. Scientists are now reporting vast plumes of oil up to ten miles long under the surface.

The spill has cost BP about $500 million so far. But consider, in just the first three months this year, BP made profits of $6 billion.

There are plenty of accusations to go around that BP pressed for speed, Halliburton's cement plugs failed, and Transocean damaged the blowout preventer.

Through all the red flags, they pressed ahead. It was, after all, the Deepwater Horizon, the world record holder, celebrated as among the safest in the fleet.

"Men lost their lives," survivor Mike Williams told Pelley. "I don't know how else to say it. All the things that they told us could never happen happened."

MichaelWestbrook (talk) 10:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request

{{editsemiprotected}} I think the line "considered the worst offshore oil spill in us history" should include "and possibly the worst ecological disaster in us history," based on this more recent source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37432881/ns/gulf_oil_spill/ Sorry, I don't have ten edits required to edit the page. Lunixer (talk) 14:40, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Not done: the wording of the article ("officials are calling it the country's biggest environmental catastrophe") is very non-descriptive and there is no elaboration or specific source for the assertion. I think it's best to leave the article as-is. haz (talk) 14:45, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
This should probably be made clearer. I wrote most of the articles about the Everglades. The restoration projects involved there are called the largest, most comprehensive and expensive environmental repair plan in human history. Some environmental catastrophes take years or decades to be realized. --Moni3 (talk) 21:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

"This disaster just got enormously worse"

"Rick Steiner, a retired marine scientist who's familiar with both the current Gulf oil spill and the Exxon Valdez disaster two decades ago." [2]

Given the length of the Wikipedia article, is there any point in adding this?Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 15:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and added what I considered the relevant details of the article. The only date given was for Obama's comment, which was out of place where I added it but at least gave some idea of when the predictions took place.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 16:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Relevant laws?

I heard on The Ed Schultz Show today an environmental lawyer allude to Title 33 of the United States Code, which has some truly vicious remedies for an oil spill of this magnitude. (Which he said includes nationalizing the company at fault.) Any thoughts on adding a section on the legal aspect of this incident -- which will be grinding through the US legal system (at the least) for the next several years? -- llywrch (talk) 20:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I think citing such a specific statute before it is truly newsworthy would be premature. On the other hand, one might well cite the specific statutes named by the the U.S. Attorney General in his press release of today announcing criminal investigations:

"Among the many statutes Department attorneys are reviewing are:

  • The Clean Water Act, which carries civil penalties and fines as well as criminal penalties;
  • The Oil Pollution Act of 1990, which can be used to hold parties liable for cleanup costs and reimbursement for government efforts;
  • The Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Endangered Species Acts, which provide penalties for injury and death to wildlife and bird species; and,
  • Other traditional criminal statutes."

http://www.justice.gov/ag/speeches/2010/ag-speech-100601.html

Have at it -- no time today.

Paulscrawl (talk) 21:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Concise ref names all three statutes above: [1]

  1. ^ David Hammer (2010-06-01). "Feds conducting criminal, civil probe of oil spill, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder says". =Times-Picayune. Retrieved 2010-06-01.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link)

NPOV, refs, wrong section etc

BP has had a history of criminal negligence in regards to environmental obligations. In 2006 the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Criminal Investigation Division started the process of gathering evidence to submit for criminal prosecution of BP Officials. The Justice Department (DOJ) abruptly shut down his investigation into BP in August 2007 at the direction of the Bush Administration.
"It is clear that BP Management has one priority and that is cost reduction ... Perhaps you may know some way of getting our concerns heard and addressed. If these concerns are not addressed, we feel that a major catastrophe is imminent. We have only our lives and our futures at risk here."

<ref>Jason Leopold (2010-05-19). "How Bush's DOJ Killed a Criminal Probe Into BP That Threatened to Net Top Officials". truthout. {{cite news}}: Text "Report" ignored (help)</ref>

  • This was in the "Atlantis Oil Field safety practices" section.
  • The quote is not related to the text
  • The first part is unreffed.
  • Words such as "abruptly" are used (who is the "he" that "his" refers to?)

This material probably belongs in some other article, if anywhere, and if it can be cleaned up and reffed properly. Rich Farmbrough, 23:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC).

Yes, I don't think "truthout.org" is a strong enough ref for such severe criticism. TastyCakes (talk) 23:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
My memory seems to indicate we came to that conclusion is a past discussion. I would also like to see something other than jusy truthout for that one.--Labattblueboy (talk) 23:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Monitor

Is there no way (website) that let us follow/monitor the actual size and location of the spill on the surface? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.191.208.195 (talk) 10:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, Google's got a map set up that they update every once in a while with info from various different sources as they update. Map is hereJfjuno (talk) 11:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

solusion

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


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

You didn't even spell solution right.

69.136.72.16 (talk) 01:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

His spelling is not relevant to the point. Skullers (talk) 07:41, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
This topic isn't relevant to the point, why are we brainstorming solutions on the wiki page?Jfjuno (talk) 11:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Second paragraph barrel figures is wrong against source

This uses barrels where the source states gallons. ".. the Flow Rate Technical Group estimate of 12,000 barrels (500,000 US gallons; 1,900,000 litres) to as much as 100,000 barrels (4,200,000 US gallons; 16,000,000 litres) of crude oil per day. " Plus the third paragraph corrects those figures. If someone how is vested this this article wants to clean up paragraph 2 and 3 it would be appreciated. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.53.112.25 (talk) 21:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind, after reading all the various sources stating their guesses on 'flow rate', it's clearly a process of "who's the highest bidder". I'll wait a year for the 'real' number to show up on wikipedia once everyone irons out their political battles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.53.112.25 (talk) 21:30, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Source added for 100,000 barrels figure. Patken4 (talk) 21:46, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Should an OP-ED which is not an official estimate of flow be used as an estimate? I think not. Even so, the high end is even high for the OP-ED, which actually gives a more modest estimate of 60K to 75K. The goal of WP should not be to sensationalize the issue. Lets use the a reliable official estimate for the upper amount. Arzel (talk) 04:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Now we see, :
"Current estimates of the amount of oil being discharged range from 12,000–100,000 barrels (500,000–4,200,000 US gallons; 1,900,000–16,000,000 litres) per day.[9] The preliminary best estimate that was released on May 27 by the semi-official Flow Rate Technical Group put the volume of oil flowing from the blown-out well at 12,000 to 19,000 barrels (500,000 to 800,000 US gallons; 1,900,000 to 3,000,000 litres) per day, which had amounted to between 440,000 and 700,000 barrels (18,000,000 and 29,000,000 US gallons; 70,000,000 and 111,000,000 litres) as of that date. "
What difference does it make if it's an OP-ED or something else? Every number at this point is an estimation based on the facts available to them. The OP-ED is written by group of scientists who have studied the oil spill with the information that's available to them and have come up with a range of how much oil is being lost. One of the authors of the piece was even called before Congress to give his figures, so it likely wasn't written by a bunch of people who have no business giving their figures. Originally, BP estimated a 1,000 barrel loss. They changed that to 5,000 a day after the government came up with 5,000 barrels. Now, BP says "We look at the flow rates and we've never been able to measure them precisely." Source Even with the FRTG, there is a difference of opinion by people in the group as to whether the 12,000-19,000 figure is the actual range or the minimum of what is being lost. So even the FRTG is in disagreement with what the flow rate is. The 100,000 figure probably isn't correct, just as the 12,000 figure probably isn't correct. Other scientists have given figures of 50,000 to 80,000, so 100,000 isn't that much more. Patken4 (talk) 22:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
The "Flow Rate Technical Group" is official and governmental - http://www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com/go/doc/2931/569235/ . That should be the source for the lead and in the other parts of the wiki page, the other estimates should be secondary and stated as other estimates that aren't official. The other figures shouldn't be sensationalized but at the same time, they can be included in a fair way that informs the reader that there is disagreement to the Flow Rate Technical Groups figures. You might or might not want to include some of the figures were done a napkins after viewing 30 secs of video ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.53.112.25 (talk) 18:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I would say it is being done at this point. If someone is wondering where the 100,000 figure is coming from, they can look at the source and decide for themselves if the 100,000 figure is believable or not. The fact of the matter, the number exists and was put forward a source that has done independent study on it. The range of current estimates is 12,000 to 100,000, with other estimates being at many points in between. Patken4 (talk) 22:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Also, don't see how that can still be true: "The exact spill flow rate is uncertain – in part because BP has refused to allow independent scientists to perform accurate measurements – and is a matter of ongoing debate." with the FRTG being in existence now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.53.112.25 (talk) 18:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Until someone actually goes down to where the spill and takes actual measurements, all figures given for the spill rate are estimates. BP has decided not to let anyone do it because they think it will interfere with their efforts to stop the spill. The FRTG did not use actual measurements, otherwise their numbers wouldn't be estimates. The fact that even members of the group can't agree to what the numbers mean just proves it. BP says "We look at the flow rates and we've never been able to measure them precisely."Source So even the group that is closest to the spill and would have the best access to the data can't even come up with a figure. Everything is an estimate, and the actual number may never be known. Patken4 (talk) 22:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I think some people here have a misunderstanding of an estimate with regards to statistical analysis. Now, assuming that an OP-ED is acceptable for a factual statement, their actual estimate is 60K to 75K. The 100K is the upper end of their confidence level on the estimate, but to say that it is an estimate is incorrect, and for us to include it purely for sensationalism does not do a service to WP. Arzel (talk) 13:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I would consider The Measure of a Disaster Op-ed in the New York Times a reliable source, but not necessarily the definitive authoritative source on the matter. Steve Wereley is an Associate Professor at Purdue, Timothy Crone, an associate research scientist at Columbia University's, John Amos, a geologist at SkyTruth and Ian R. MacDonald is a professor of oceanography at Florida State University. Generally I am against using op-eds as a source but if this is the one being referred to, I think it merits an exception. IMO, an upper-end estimate of 100,000 / per day is acceptable, based on this source. A range of 12000-100000 works for me. --Labattblueboy (talk) 19:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
I understand what you're saying. I have been able to find several sources stating the upper limit of estimates as 95,000 One example. So the 100K estimate can't be considered "sensationalism". If you or someone else wants to change the upper estimate to 95K based on that source, feel free. All that sentence is saying is that there is a wide range of opinion on what the spill rate is. Patken4 (talk) 21:00, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

News media sources

News media links were included in the external links today. The list made the External Links too large but I think they are still useful, particularly for editor monitoring source options. --Labattblueboy (talk) 22:46, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


  • 'Too large' may well be your personal opinion, but that doesn't mean they should be deleted. Ongoing coverage is important, as one encyclopedia article can't possibly go into the depth these do. That's the point of 'External links', the online version of 'Further reading'. Flatterworld (talk) 03:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
    • The size of the external links section has been brought up in two previous discussion this page. For direction regarding what is appropriate for external links, please see WP:EL, or more specifically WP:ELPOINTS and WP:ELNO. Many, if not all the news media outlets mentioned as already linked as references, duplicating such links is not necessary.--Labattblueboy (talk)
      • Please stop your reverts while the discussion is continuing, as I don't recall you being appointed editor-in-chief of all Wikipedia. I am editing in good faith, and fully within WP:EL. You appear to be confusing a reference to one article with a link to the entire body of continuing coverage. The latter includes far more than can be summarized in the article, including graphics, interview, photos, videos, and so forth. That's why they're in External links. Note:

        3. Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons.

        Flatterworld (talk) 13:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
        • On the whole I have to agree with Flatterworld on this question. I especially like the analogy to a 'Further reading' section. These aren't links to individual articles, but rather to entire collections of articles. I really don't see how this sort of link is covered by the sections of WP:EL cited as authority for their deletion. I will leave open the possibility that one or another of these links may not be needed. Cgingold (talk) 13:35, 1 June 2010much (UTC)
          • The reasons for each 'collected coverage' link are as follows: NYT, LA Times (major US papers - the Washington Post and Christian Science Monitor had no special sections), C-Span (reliable videos of testimony, etc.), BBC and Guardian (major UK papers as BP is British - Telegraph and Times had no special sections), Texas/Alabama/Louisiana/Florida (Gulf Coast states directly affected, so their coverage was unique - couldn't find anything from Mississippi). The CNN iReport link was already there, so I left it, but their special coverage collection is at http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2010/gulf.coast.oil.spill/ which would be better imo. Flatterworld (talk)
    • Direction from WP:ELN is that we shouldn't worry about applying WP:EL strictly at this point in time and revisit the issue in a couple months.--Labattblueboy (talk) 02:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Spill Flow Rate

Surely this section could be cut down. Do we really need that much text just on how much is coming out of the pipe? It could be summarised or made into a list. --Half Price (talk) 14:02, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

June 2 NYT update

According to this article on the front page of June 2's The New York Times, "BP and government officials said flatly for the first time that they had abandoned any further plans to try and plug the well, and would instead try to siphon the leaking oil and gas to the surface until relief wells can stop the flow, most likely not before August."

Saw this today, included in a story about the Obama administration opening cicil and criminal investigations into the disaster. The article is pretty hard to navigate, so I don't know if it's been added already. ALI nom nom 14:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Solid New York Times article, however you didn't link to the specific article here... just wanted to offer another possible source (reference) covering same criminal probe from The Washington Post, which includes video of the press conference by U.S. Attorney General: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/01/AR2010060102829.html?hpid=topnews ... Also, concerning latest news on why current BP siphoning operation has currently stopped, see next entry below... MichaelWestbrook (talk) 17:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Units

It seem that there are currently severak units of measurement to measure the quantity of oil spilled, suggesting better standardisation. The list of oil spills articles uses tonnes, so perhaps those are the best units? I realise that due to varying densities and distribution, units of volume, mass and surface area covered are not interchangable, but perhaps a link to conversions and information on the densities of various grades of oil would help.javascript:insertTags('137.222.212.111 (talk) 14:01, 31 May 2010 (UTC)',,)

Since WTI, the crude oil used as a benchmark in oil pricing, is measured in "barrels", it seems appropriate that barrels be the standard measurement for now, seeing as how this will certainly be a day-to-day developing news story for some time. Once the leak is stopped, then I can see discussion of weights/measurements such as "tons" being considered. On that note, the price of oil just rose past $74 per barrel. Look for that figure to keep rising with an above average hurricane season mixed with this disaster in the immediate future. MichaelWestbrook (talk) 15:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Agree, I think barrels should be the main unit here. As a side note, my understanding is that tons (or tonnes) are typically used when talking about the capacity of oil tankers (especially in Europe I think) while barrels are the default for volumes of oil (and other fluids) for most of the rest of the industry (cubic meters might be occasionally used in Europe, but I think that is more common with gas). TastyCakes (talk) 15:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
For oil, barrels is the primary unit of measure (primary in media and industry), followed by US Gallons (US being the region of focus). Litres have been added as a secondary unit conversation, after US Gal, to accommodate the international audience (I think). For distances, imperial measurement is primary, followed by metric. I don't think I'd personally be in favour of also using tonnes, simply because 3 units of measure seems like enough and I haven't seen mention of tonnes amongst sources. --Labattblueboy (talk) 15:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
But to answer your question, or rather, shed some light on how catastrophic this disaster will be (RE: "tons" of oil spilled)... Exxon Valdez spill size: 38,500 tons ... Amoco Cadiz spill size: 227,000 tons ... Aegean Captain/ Atlantic Empress spill size: 287,000 tons ... IXTOC I spill size: 480,000 tons ... Gulf War spill size: 1,500,000 tons ... and as of 2 weeks ago, this "worst-case estimate" determined by BP for Deepwater Horizon spill size (keep in mind, this was 2 weeks ago): 230,000 tons so far. (and counting) SOURCE: http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2010/fortune/1005/gallery.expensive_oil_spills.fortune/index.html MichaelWestbrook (talk) 16:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Using the lowest current estimate of the Flow Rate Technical Group of 12,000 barrels per day, about 500,000 (12,000 * 41 days) barrels have been lost, or about 66,000 tonnes (1 ton ~ 7.33 barrels). Using the highest estimate of 100,000 barrels per day, 4,100,000 barrels have been lost, or about 560,000 tonnes. Patken4 (talk) 16:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
There is no source stating, "highest estimate of 100,000 barrels per day," - the source used in the second paragraph states gallons. The source says, "...have determined that 12,000 to 25,000 BARRELS of oil per day have been spewing from the blown-out well. That's about 500,000 to 1 million GALLONS of oil per day." This is why the article should stick with barrels and link it to Barrel_of_oil#Oil_barrel. That section of the article might want to mention the other conversion factors though at the lead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.53.112.25 (talk) 21:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Four scientists have stated that the spill could be as high as 100,000 barrels per day. "Taking all this into account, our preliminary estimates indicate that the discharge is at least 40,000 barrels per day and could be as much as 100,000 barrels." Link. Patken4 (talk) 21:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Stick with barrels/gallons since they are the units most media sources are using. Using tonnes would cause too much confusion for readers. Patken4 (talk) 16:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
I think if a metric conversion is to remain, liters should be replaced with cubic meters. TastyCakes (talk) 17:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
  • The continuous insertion of converting barrels into gallons and liters each time there is a mention of the spill flow is tediously boring, disruptive, and annoying to a reader. Once is sufficient. Eliminate all the parenthetical (xxxxxx gallons, xxxxxxxx liters)s after the first one; a reader ought to be able to figure out the conversions on his own if he desires to do so.—24.49.51.81 (talk) 17:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
An uninterested reader can figuratively "leapfrog" over subjectively "unimportant" information. -- Wavelength (talk) 18:02, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
I concur with user 24.49.51.81 ... In reference work writing such as encyclopedia articles, less is more, especially regarding repetition of say, "footnotes", or in the case of this article, measurement conversions in parentheses after every mention of "barrel" figure estimates. Keep in mind a definition of "parenthesis": parenthesis - Insertion of some verbal unit in a position that interrupts the normal flow of the sentence. 24.49.51.81 used the term "disruptive" and "tedious". Well put. I am new here so I won't be so bold as to edit the article and remove them myself yet. I find it best right now to just contribute information here in the talk page, until I get a better feel for the editing environment. MichaelWestbrook (talk) 19:14, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm fine with having just barrels and US gallons, but I don't think there should be less than that.--Labattblueboy (talk) 19:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
And again, I don't think liters make any sense, they are just too small a unit, cubic meters seems better to me. TastyCakes (talk) 20:14, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
I think the question is would you be ok with no metric for oil measurement.--Labattblueboy (talk) 19:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I fully agree that liters should be replaced with cubic meters. I tried to replace 'L' with 'm3' in the conversion templates but for some reasons it does not work for conversion with multiply output units. And I understand that we should keep also US gallons. Maybe somebodu knows how to fix the conversion template to convert oil barrels into US gallons and cubic meters at the same time. Beagel (talk) 19:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I'd be find without metric units, not sure if there are Wikipedia guidelines on that in the wp:MOS or somewhere... TastyCakes (talk) 20:49, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Ah, I see it does, but it's not super helpful in our case, I don't think. Unless we go out on a limb and call oil field units "imperial"... TastyCakes (talk) 20:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Deepwater_Horizon_oil_spill/Archive_3&oldid=1136656161"