Talk:Deepwater Horizon oil spill/Archive 9

This is an archive of past discussions about Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

→

Flow rate

We need to update the flow rate in the lede (and elsewhere). I'd like to add this sentence to the lede:

It was estimated that 53,000 barrels of oil a day were escaping from the well just before it was finally capped on July 15. It is believed that the daily flow rate diminished over time, starting at about 62,000 barrels a day and decreasing as the reservoir of hydrocarbons feeding the gusher was gradually depleted.

Any comments? It would be good if someone that knows how to convert the numbers would do it, as I don't know how to enter that. Here's the ref: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/03/us/03spill.html?fta=y Gandydancer (talk) 12:23, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I made these changes in the lead and the volume section as you asked (just made little changes to remove repetition about final capping date which was included in the previous sentence). Beagel (talk) 09:22, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Casualties listed in the profile box

There are far more than 'thirteen dead and seventeen injured'. There are far more. This will sound emotional (and it is) but I'm sick of a system that only lists human dead. Please list every single life that has been wrecked by these people. Far more than thirty. 82.37.246.236 (talk) 13:02, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Expansion predictions

Does the information in the expansion predictions subsection is still relevant? It seems to be ~~speculations~~ predictions several months old. If these predictions are out-of-date, the subsection should be removed. Beagel (talk) 09:18, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it should be removed. Gandydancer (talk) 14:29, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Wow. I was considering removing the information I added about the possibility the East Coast could be hit with oil. This was a major thing a couple of months ago. I was going to add the prediction that the East Coast will likely not get hit but I don't know what I did with the information. But isn't there some way we can keep the prediction information somewhere, just as a historical record?Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 22:09, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmmmm ... I see my information HAS already been removed. Doesn't look like removing the rest would help much.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 22:16, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

The current text speculates about the impact of tropical storm/hurricane. My question is is it still relevant? There was the Tropical Storm Bonnie which did not have any of these predicted consequences. Therefore, are these predictions still relevant or not? Beagel (talk) 08:10, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe not the specifics. As for my text and sources that have already been removed, Loop Current might be the appropriate place. I don't know. This was a big concern at one time and there is still a brief mention.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 17:04, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

That sounds good Vchimpanzee. Gandydancer (talk) 12:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Reading the entire article and attempting some updating, it really does seem to me that expansion predictions should go. If someone wants to keep it please say so now or add a small mention somewhere. If not, I am going to remove it. Gandydancer (talk) 01:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

No further discussion so I will remove it. Gandydancer (talk) 14:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Past tense or present tense (redux)

Once again, the article was changed to past tense (with no edit summary). The change was buried with subsequent vandalism. Either way might be right, but not without consensus. I changed it back to "is". "Was" stood for 5 days! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:59, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Eventually it will be changed to past tense, the question is when is the appropriate moment to do that. When the leak is stopped? When the permanent sealing operations are done? When the cleanup operations cease? When there is no longer any oil in Gulf waters? Any of those choices are fine with me. I think we have a better chance of doing it well if we do it earlier, when there are more eyes on the article. Thundermaker (talk) 10:00, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I guess we need to figure out the definition then criteria. For me, the definition is both oil spilling and oil spilled. Criteria for past tense? I don't know where to start. A cleanup worker would call it past tense in 2050. A BP exec would call it past tense the instant the cap was in place. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:33, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Change the wording to a time-less phrase: "The Deepwater Horizon oil spill is the name of an massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, which began on April 20, 2010."
Because multiple layers of buried oil have been documented as mixed 2-feet below the sands of many beach areas, and submerged oil has been sampled from the bottom in the waters along shorelines, the cleanup will obviously take years and years. Weeks ago, cleanup workers complained that they went home before cleaning all surface oil, and the next day, the tide covered the oil with new sand, and they were told there was no need to continue cleaning the beaches from the previous day. The vast sheets of tar globs and oil sheen were still there, along miles of coastline, but hidden a few inches under the new sand washed shore by the overnight tide. Oil is also mixed into the underwater sand, a few yards (metres) offshore. Then BP scaled back the vessels of opportunity program, from 6,000 to 450 boats, and more oil washed ashore yesterday (10 August 2010). Tagline for this spill: "IT'S BACK!". -Wikid77 (talk) 05:29, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

For the third time, the tense has been changed. Once again, with no edit summary, user Diving2010 has changed "is" to "was". I have reverted that edit. (The first time Diving2010 did this was on Aug 5.) Please keep an eye on this user's edits. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Reference Mania

The article currently stands as to many references, but I don't want to be WP:BOLD because of personal reasons. Also, the external links should be cut down a bit, not very encyclopedic. AboundingHinata (talk) 00:25, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Please see previous section about references. This is a highly contentious subject. It is very important that everything Wikipedia says about it should be solidly referenced. If this makes it look untidy, well too bad. Getting all the facts right is much more important. Boldness in cutting is not a virtue here. Budhen (talk) 14:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

It is the largest marine oil spill in the history of the petroleum industry, again.

Okay, I'm not sure if it's just me, but I still don't seem to understand what this sentence is trying to imply. "It is the largest marine oil spill in the history of the petroleum industry." Yet, Largest oil spills tells us that it is the fifth. I'm assuming that the word "marine" is what is distinguishing this from being the "largest oil spill of all time, is that correct? _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 02:04, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Ericleb01. The New York Times said it was the largest ever "accidental spill of oil into marine waters". So yes, I guess your assumption is correct. -SusanLesch (talk) 02:27, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, but then Wikipedia's list names the Gulf War oil spill as the fourth largest oil spill in history. This was a spill into the Persian Gulf, purposely begun by Iraqi forces during the Gulf War. With this said, the Deepwater Horizon spill would be the second largest marine oil spill in history, but the largest accidental oil spill in history (which NYT confirms). Would you agree that this should be changed to reflect this, or is there something I'm missing? _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 03:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Surely, you can change it if you have a reliable source (NYT is usually reliable). -SusanLesch (talk) 06:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Removed Disappearing Plumes section

I am moving a section recently added to the article here. I am hoping for some help, I simply do not see how the added section comes from the reference. The reference given was an abstract which follows:174.74.68.103 (talk) 02:27, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The biological effects and expected fate of the vast amount of oil in the Gulf of Mexico from the Deepwater Horizon blowout are unknown due to the depth and magnitude of this event. Here, we report that the dispersed hydrocarbon plume stimulated deep-sea indigenous {gamma}-proteobacteria that are closely related to known petroleum-degraders. Hydrocarbon-degrading genes coincided with the concentration of various oil contaminants. Changes in hydrocarbon composition with distance from the source and incubation experiments with environmental isolates demonstrate faster-than-expected hydrocarbon biodegradation rates at 5°C. Based on these results, the potential exists for intrinsic bioremediation of the oil plume in the deep-water column without substantial oxygen drawdown.[1]174.74.68.103 (talk) 03:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The section added to the article is:

More recently, a broad array of previously unknown bacteria that consume deep-water oil have been discovered in the Gulf of Mexico. The discoverers, researchers at Lawrence Berkley National Laboratory, report that these bacteria are so efficient in consuming oil that the plumes can no longer be detected

Let me add, the plumes are being detected as we speak, see Oil Plume From Spill Persists, Data Show [2] Gulf oil spill: Oxygen dropped near oil plumes [3] Gulf Oil Finds Many Paths [4]

" A team from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Woods Hole, Mass., reported in August that it had mapped a giant plume, or cloud, of oil floating beneath the surface. It is one of three or four plumes other groups have also reported.

This cloud was about as tall as a 50-story office building and more than a mile long. It was floating more than 3,000 feet beneath the surface, and the researchers say that’s mysterious. Oil usually floats on top of water, but there may be many of these plumes crawling along, deep underwater." 174.74.68.103 (talk) 02:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The part removed should be corrected and added back, the text we have does not conform to the information given in the reference. It is not uncommon for scientific "papers" to be misunderstood and misrepresented on Wikipedia. About your sources used to question the study:

The first one states "The new data, based on measurements taken in June" and this part which conforms to the reference you REMOVED. "Contrary to previous predictions by other researchers, however, the Woods Hole group found no evidence of "dead zones," in which bacteria feasting on oil can use up so much oxygen in the process that no fish or marine life can survive. They speculated that earlier oxygen readings might have been wrong because measuring devices can give artificially low readings when coated by oil."[5]
The second one which seems to be a news blog post rehashing the above reports. It states a 20% decrease in O2 readings near the source of the spill “None of the dissolved oxygen readings have approached the levels associated with a dead zone, and as the oil continues to diffuse and degrade, hypoxia becomes less of a threat.” and "The Woods Hole crew also did not find any dead zones -- where oxygen levels are so low they can't support marine life -- associated with the plume. But the team said it was possible the oil layer could persist for some time." [6]
The third one again uses data from June, but also states more current research when it says - "Some bacteria that live in the water digest the oil — and some scientists have already claimed seeing the results. In a study published August 24, scientists reported that one giant plume had already gone away, leaving behind a cloud of hungry microbes. However, not everyone agrees that oil-eating critters are working so quickly"[7] There is a lot of speculation , much of it using conditions that no longer exist. There a lot of unknowns and way to much speculation. Hardyplants (talk) 03:34, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank for that feedback, if it is clear to you how that section should be worded, please add it.174.74.68.103 (talk) 03:41, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Considering the size of the article already, I no longer think that that study is useful to include in that much detail. It has might have a place in an article on oil consuming orgimisns. All we need here is that some of the oil(how much is debated) is consumed by bacteria. Hardyplants (talk) 04:08, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I see we are reading the article differently. It is not about oil eating microbes at all, but rather the findings of oil on the sea floor. It has made big news here in the States and certainly deserves a section in this article. Thanks again. 174.74.68.103 (talk) 04:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Oops - my apologies, I was working on two different sections tonight. My above statements are in reference to your recent changes to the Samantha Joye findings of oil on seafloor. My original request for help with wording was in reference to the statement that the plumes were gone. If you know how to reword as you suggested, please do. I agree this article does not need to be much larger, but others here have shared that the more information the better.174.74.68.103 (talk) 05:07, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think a separate section is warranted (especially anything that states the plumes are no longer detectable), but adding new information that the oil spill has resulted in a large increase in cold-water bacteria that do not consume significant amounts of oxygen, as was warned of regarding the spill, should be addressed. As the plumes are also related to the use of the dispersant Corexit, used extensively on the leaking oil, the research that relates to Corexit's effects on bioremediation are also relevant. Finally, the speed with which the microbes might remediate the oil plumes would be significant. If I find the time, I will try to add appropriate findings where relevant to already existing statements in the article that are relevant to the current situation in the Gulf or to outstanding questions. --John G. Miles (talk) 19:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Rename this article BP Oil Spill

Isn't it the case that most people refer to this event as the "BP Oil Spill" and that nobody even knows what "Deepwater Horizon" really is? 98.248.180.183 (talk) 21:54, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

There was a lot of discussion about the title, since calling it a spill is inaccurate as well, according to BP's Dudley it is a leak. But if you Google "BP oil spill", it defaults to this page. 174.74.68.103 (talk) 04:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

There have been two different significant "BP Oil Spills", and this distinguishes them. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Deepwater Horizon should always be unique whereas BP is not. The "BP Oil Spill" search either from Wiki or from Google is perfectly easy. The naming of the article makes no difference to the search and avoids ambiguity. The article itself explains what "Deepwater Horizon" means. Budhen (talk) 10:15, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Well said Budhen and fully agree, I couldn't have explained it any better myself.--Labattblueboy (talk) 11:18, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't disagree more with any of your arguments. If one searches for "world's worst oil spill" or any possible combination of those terms, Deepwater Horizon does indeed come up. In a few years time, nobody is going to click on it because nobody will know what Deepwater Horizon is, whereas if the article were named BP Oil Spill it would immediately come to mind. Just like Exxon Valdez. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.248.180.183 (talk) 20:15, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

You just contradicted yourself. Did you mean the "Exxon Oil Spill?" :) There will always be more than on BP Oil Spill, but right now the Deepwater Horizon event is the most topical. Wikipedia strives to be a more lasting resource. - JeffJonez (talk) 17:36, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

It seems to make sense to do a survey of just how the spill is referred to most often, and make our assessment based on that rather than random Wiki-editor opinions. NPR is referring to this as BP oil spill, for instance. Has anyone any idea of how a survey could be conducted? I wonder if there is a way to search the internet for this info. 174.74.68.103 (talk) 00:03, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

That is not the way that articles on wikipedia are named. Kittybrewster ☎ 11:48, 18 September 2010 (UTC)|

Splitting the article

The tag has been sitting there for ages, and is very unsightly. Has the article stopped growing? Can it remain this size or should we split it? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:21, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The size is still at least twice of the normal size. Beagel (talk) 15:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

At least twice the normal size? I must admit it does not seem that long to me, but I must also admit that I love information. I did attempt to use the guide for checking size, but again my lack of computer skills prevented me from doing even this simple task. If it is indeed too long, Anna is right - we must pare it down some and get rid of that tag. I would think that the "Investigations" section could have its own article, since that section would be expected to grow. Gandydancer (talk) 16:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I used this technique to estimate the readable prose size, and got 71K. That falls in the "Probably should be divided" range according to WP:SPLIT#Article_size. Also, I think that splitting the article would be better for reading and editing. I suggest splitting off the Consequnces section, since it's the longest. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 05:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Support, would make a great little article, and with a bit of work, could easily reach the ranks of GA. It would shave 34K off of the total 71K prose size, making it a perfect solution. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 05:53, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the links to the guidelines - I had no idea that there is more to it than just readability. I agree that the Consequences section would be a good split. Gandydancer (talk) 12:12, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest waiting for activity on the article to slow down once the "news" aspect of the spill ends. The article could then be edited to remove redundancies (there are many) and to summarize many of the bloated sections with the general and essential conclusions, moving the detailed supporting statements to references. --John G. Miles (talk) 19:16, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the article has bloating which could be removed to reduce the article size. However, I'm not sure what to make of your statement about waiting until the news aspect of the spill ends. While the amount of news has slowed considerably, I see no end in sight. There will be on-going news about several aspects of the spill, such as (a) the investigations, (b) proposed changes to drilling regulations, (c) the safety of seafood from the gulf, (d) the administration of the spill response fund and (e) what can be done/needs to be done about the oil on the sea floor. When these issues make news, there will be more article additions, so the article will continue to grow. I don't think we should be waiting indefinitely to address the article size. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 05:09, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Confusing information in article tourism section

Doing some wording updates, I found this contradictory information in our article:

Although many people cancelled their vacations at first, hotels close to the coasts of Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama reported dramatic increases in business from 2009 during the first half of May 2010. On May 25 BP gave Florida $25 million to promote the beaches where the oil had not reached, and the company planned $15 million each for Alabama, Louisiana and Mississippi. The Bay Area Tourist Development Council bought digital billboards showing recent photos from the gulf coast beaches as far north as Nashville, Tennessee and Atlanta. Along with these and other assurances that the beaches were so far unaffected, hotels cut rates and offered deals such as free golf. Also, cancellation policies were changed, and refunds were promised to those where oil may have arrived. However, 2009 was a slow year, and those working to deal with the spill have rented rooms in the area. Revenues remain below 2009 levels due to the special deals.[247] By June many people were cancelling vacations while they could do so, fearing the arrival of oil on the beaches.[248]

The U.S. Travel Association estimated that the economic impact of the oil spill on tourism across the Gulf Coast over a three-year period could exceed approximately $23 billion, in a region that supports over 400,000 travel industry jobs generating $34 billion in revenue annually.[249][250]

The first sentence says there was a dramatic increase in business, but it is not cited so I can't check it out. However, the rest of the info states that tourism income was down. What do you think we should do? Gandydancer (talk) 13:08, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Gandydancer, I am finding unsourced information which matches your examples in that it paints a rosy picture, does not match current information available in a Google search, and the ref leads to an abstract (doesn't Wikipedia require a peer-review, and what good is an abstract?) or nowhere. My suggestion, and what i am very close to doing myself, is that if you cannot find a reference yourself - remove the bit. Move it here to the discussion page in case someone can find a good reference for it. Seems the simplest thing to do.174.74.68.103 (talk) 03:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I believe I have fixed this problem. Also, Tourism had its own section at one time and I see no reason that it should be combined with fishing, so I changed that. Gandydancer (talk) 13:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Underwater plumes

Again, continuing with small wording updates I find some confusing information, and again no citation to check (grrr - how does this uncited stuff get into the article?). Considering that:

"USF's first NOAA-sponsored voyage to take samples after Deepwater Horizon, the one that turned up evidence of the undersea plumes, was designed to gather evidence for use in an eventual court case against BP and other oil companies involved in the disaster. At the end of the voyage, USF turned its samples over to NOAA, expecting to get either a shared analysis or the samples themselves back. So far, Hogarth said, they've received neither."

...perhaps it is not surprising that it is hard to figure out exactly where we are with the plume information. Right now the article reads like this:

When scientists initially reported the discovery of undersea oil plumes, BP stated its sampling showed no evidence that oil was massing and spreading in the gulf water column. NOAA chief Jane Lubchenco urged caution, calling the reports "misleading, premature and, in some cases, inaccurate."[98] Researchers from the Universities of South Florida and Southern Mississippi claim the government tried to squelch their findings. "We expected that NOAA would be pleased because we found something very, very interesting," said Vernon Asper, an oceanographer at the USM. "NOAA instead responded by trying to discredit us. It was just a shock to us."[99] Lubchenco rejected Asper's characterization, saying "What we asked for, was for people to stop speculating before they had a chance to analyze what they were finding."[100] She argued for the necessity of chemically fingerprinting the plumes in order to distinguish them from oil seeps that occur naturally in the Gulf.[101] Lubchenco's initial caution was confirmed when the first samples analyzed by NOAA could not link any of the newly discovered plumes to the BP well, with one of the plumes determined to be completely unrelated.[92] Given later analyses confirming plumes originating from the well, NOAA's Lubchenco now predicts that some of the spill's most significant impacts will be caused by their effect on juvenile sea creatures.

First off, I do not find the wording "Lubchenco's initial caution was confirmed" very encyclopedic. (And, I cannot help but to mention that NOAA certainly seemed to throw all caution to the wind when they later released their report on what happened to the oil...) But to get back on track, reference #92 says that one sample was negative, one positive, and two too small to test. But, did NOAA eventually confirm more than one plume? Our article states, "Given later analyses confirming plumes [plumes, not a plume] originating from the well", but there is no citation. Can anyone find a reference for the final NOAA report? Gandydancer (talk) 14:29, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, as we all know, unless one has hours and hours of free time to go back and look at old edits it is just not possible to figure out exactly what and when changes were made. However, just at random I went back to an old edit I made and I do find that at one time this article did include the information I am looking for. The reference is here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/07/23/98088/researchers-confirm-subsea-gulf.html Gandydancer (talk) 22:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this answers your question, but regarding the science on plumes, it looks like 4 have been identified by independent scientists : ^[1] 174.74.68.103 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC).

I have corrected the info from the NOAA report and deleted Lubchenco's statement since I could not find a good reference. Gandydancer (talk) 14:06, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I stumbled upon the reference: [8] and [9]. Will go ahead and add this. 174.74.68.103 (talk) 06:16, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Nice work and thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 14:10, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

"Removal" section - remove table

The table in the Removal section has no references. I can't figure out where it comes from, and don't see how it adds to the article as it takes up much space but says nothing clearly. Could the information be summed up more concisely? I believe so, but don't want to remove it without a bit of feedback. 174.74.68.103 (talk) 00:33, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

The table in question is introduced by the text "The table below presents the NOAA estimates based ..." That sentence ends with two references. No. 215 is to the Journal Science, which published the data used to produce the table. So lack of references is certainly not a reason to delete the table. I added the table because I thought is was useful to show high an low estimates for where the oil went. I would have no objections to a more concise presentation of the information, but I'm not sure how to do that.--Gautier lebon (talk) 13:49, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that your first reference is not working, perhaps you could fix it so that there is something to click on, and people can look at the source. Maybe the link is broken? Here is what is says now: Richard A. Kerr (13 August 2010). "A Lot of Oil on the Loose, Not So Much to Be Found". Science 329: 734.

It does no good for the Wikipedia audience if there is no working link.174.74.68.103 (talk) 20:38, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

It is a citation to a written (conventional paper) publication, not to an online publication. Wikipedia does not require that references be available online, many references are to books and scientific journal which are not available online. So the reference is perfectly correct by Wikipedia standards. Further, the journal Science is widely available, most public libraries would have a subscription and certainly university libraries subscribe. So it is easy for anybody to check the material in Wikipedia agains the reference.--Gautier lebon (talk) 17:03, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Would you be able to copy and paste the text here, as I am home-bound and cannot get to the local library. Otherwise, let's work with what can be found online even though the "rules" don't require it. I would like to work on summarizing the "oil budget" and can't work with the references you've offered. 174.74.68.103 (talk) 22:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

No, I cannot copy-paste because that would violate copyright laws and Wikipedia policies. It make no sense to limit the information to that found online because many non-online sources are more reliable than online sources. The very reputable magazine Science is an example.--Gautier lebon (talk) 19:05, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Let me explain, independent scientists from the University of Georgia claim that 80% of the oil remains in the Gulf.[10] So I am wondering how we reconcile this with the non-peer-reviewed table claiming residual oil is between 13 and 39%.174.74.68.103 (talk) 22:14, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

First of all, the University of Georgia claim is apparently the one that is not peer-reviewed. The Science article is a summary of a government report which did go through a review process. Second, the news article you cite (which may or may not be a correct summary of what the University of Georgia scientists said) refers to the report containing the table that you are challenging, because it says "Earlier this month federal scientists said that only about a quarter of the oil remained and the rest was either removed, dissolved or dispersed." The news article essentially states that the University of Georgia scientists are challenging the government report. So the correct way to handle that would be to add a sentence to the effect that some scientists are apparently challenging the data shown in the table. But since your only source is an online summary of what the University of Georgia scientists may or may not have said, I have some doubts that it is sufficiently reliable to warrant incluion of the sentence. If you had a reference to an actual peer-reviewed scientific paper published by the University of Georgia scientists, then that would be a different matter. But we would still not delete the table, we would only add something to the effect that scientists are challenging the government's conclusions. To summarize, I don't see any reason, at this stage, to change anything.--Gautier lebon (talk) 19:05, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

The writers of the report do not defend it as steadfastly (if at all) as you. To post the data here on Wikipedia as if it's science puts into question the entire article. Take a look at this:

Via Huffington Post[11]:

In responding to the growing furor over the public release of a scientifically dubious and overly rosy federal report about the fate of the oil that BP spilled in the Gulf of Mexico, NOAA director Jane Lubchenco has repeatedly fallen back on one particular line of defense -- that independent scientists had given it their stamp of approval.

Back at the report's unveiling on August 4, Lubchenco spoke of a "peer review of the calculations that went into this by both other federal and non-federal scientists." On Thursday afternoon, she told reporters on a conference call: "The report and the calculations that went into it were reviewed by independent scientists." The scientists, she said, were listed at the end of the report.

But all the scientists on that list contacted by the Huffington Post for comment this week said the exact same thing: That although they provided some input to NOAA (the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), they in no way reviewed the report, and could not vouch for it.

The skimpy, four-page report dominated an entire news cycle earlier this month, with contented administration officials claiming it meant that three fourths of the oil released from BP's well was essentially gone -- evaporated, dispersed, burned, etc. But independent scientists are increasingly challenging the report's findings and its interpretation -- and they are expressing outrage that the administration released no actual data or algorithms to support its claims.

HuffPost reached seven of the 11 scientists listed on the report. One declined to comment at all, six others had things to say.

In addition to disputing Lubchenco's characterization of their role, several of them actually took issue with the report itself.

In particular, they refuted the notion, as put forth by Lubchenco and other Obama administration officials, that the report was either scientifically precise or an authoritative account of where the oil went. Story continues below Advertisement

"What we were trying to do was give the Incident Command something that they could at least start with," said Ed Overton, an emeritus professor of environmental science at Louisiana State University. "But these are estimates. There's a difference between data and estimates."

Overton said NOAA asked him: "How much did I think would evaporate?" He responded with some ideas, but noted: "There's a jillion parameters which are not very amenable to modeling."

He said he didn't know what NOAA did with his input. "I pretty much did my estimates and let that go," he said.

And Overton bridled at the way the report was presented -- with very precise percentages attributed to different categories. For instance, the report declared that 24 percent of the oil had been dispersed.

"I didn't like the way they say 24 percent. We don't know that," Overton said. "They could have said a little bit more than a quarter, a little bit less than a quarter. But not 24 percent; that's impossible."

Michel Boufadel is on the list, but told HuffPost he did not review the report or its calculations. And the Temple University environmental engineer also said its specificity was inappropriate.

"When you look at that dispersed amount, and it says 8 percent chemically dispersed and 16 percent naturally dispersed, there's a high degree of uncertainty here," he said. "Naturally dispersed could be 6 or it could be 26."

Ron Goodman, a 30-year veteran of Exxon's Canadian affiliate who now runs his own consulting company, was incorrectly listed on the report with an academic affiliation: "U. of Calgary." He is only an adjunct there. He said he responded to a series of questions from NOAA -- "and that was it."

And once the report came out, he said, "I was concerned that the amount dispersed was very low. I think it was higher by maybe a factor of two or three."

In another example of how people are reading too much into the report, there has been some discussion suggesting that its estimate that 8 percent of the oil was chemically dispersed provides a new data point regarding how well those controversial chemicals worked. Goodman, however, said he believes the government scientists didn't base their conclusion on evidence, but on faith.

"They took the amount of dispersant that was applied, and multiplied it by 20 which is the manufacturer's suggested amount," he said.

Merv Fingas, a former chief researcher for Canada's environmental protection agency, said he thought the report was purely operational in nature. "The purpose of this was for the responders, and to tell them what to do -- as opposed to saying 'golly, the oil's all gone.' That was never the impression. That was very badly misinterpreted."

Fingas said the scientists stressed how broad the ranges should be for the estimates. "On the pie chart, if you say 15 percent, it could maybe be 30, it could maybe be 5."

Told how much certainty administration officials expressed in the estimates -- "we have high degree of confidence in them," is how Lubchenco put it -- Fingas was blunt.

"That's what happens when stuff goes from scientists to politicians," he said. "It was exactly the opposite with the scientists. We had a lot of uncertainty."

Juan Lasheras, an engineering professor at University of California, San Diego, on the list explained: "My involvement with the estimation of the oil spill budget has been minimal. I simply assisted Bill Lehr (NOAA) in a minor way with the estimation of the size of the oil droplets generated by the rising plume. I have not been involved in any of the other calculations or in the discussion and the writing of the report."

Jim Payne, a private environmental consultant on the list, declined to comment beyond saying: "I really don't know that much about how that was calculated."

Also worth noting: Four of the "independent scientists" listed on the report work for the oil industry, have until recently, and/or work for consulting companies that do business with the oil industry.

What happened here? Why did ballpark estimates clearly created to guide emergency responders suddenly get cast as a conclusive scientific facts? (See my story from a few hours ago, Questions Mount About White House's Overly Rosy Report On Oil Spill.)

Why did administration officials mislead the public about those findings -- and then claim that independent scientists had reviewed them, when the evidence suggests that they did not?

NOAA public affairs officials did not respond to requests for comment before my deadline.

Ian R. MacDonald, an oceanographer at Florida State University who was not one of the scientists on NOAA's list, sees this latest incident as part of an ongoing problem.

Lubchenco had previously been a key figure in the patently low-ball estimates for the oil flow, and fervently resisted acknowledging the existence of underwater oil plumes, he said.

"I've worked with NOAA essentially all my career and I have many good friends there, and people I respect in the agency, scientists who are really solid," MacDonald said.

"Throughout this process, it's been troubling to me to see the efforts of people like that passed through a filter where the objective seems to be much more political and public relations than making comments to inform the public.

"The consistent theme," MacDonald said, "seems to be to minimize the impact of the oil -- and to act as a bottleneck for information." 174.74.68.103 (talk) 17:49, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

What you cite above is a primary source. In Wikipedia we prefer tertiary sources, or secondary sources if no tertiary source can be found. The Science article from which the table is taken is a tertiary source, and it is a very reliable source. The information you cite above should be included, but only if you can find a reliable tertiary source that publishes it. It is not a matter of supporting or not supporting a particular view. Wikipedia should present all views that are found in reliable tertiary or secondary sources. When the material you cite appears in a tertiary source, it should be included. But not until then.--Gautier lebon (talk) 16:20, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Splitting article (again)

That tag has been there for a really, really long time. Previous discussions indicate support for splitting off the consequences section. Can we get consensus one way or another so that we can remove the unsightly tag?

Oppose I just tried to navigate the article. It was comfortable. I suggest removing the tag, and reassessing the matter in several months. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:16, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Reading information about article size I found this:

In the past, because of some now rarely used browsers, technical considerations prompted a strong recommendation that articles be limited to a strict maximum of 32 KB (~5 pages) in size, since editing any article longer than that would cause severe problems. With the advent of the section editing feature and the availability of upgrades for the affected browsers, this once hard and fast rule has been softened and many articles now exist which are over 32 KB of total text size. Even so, the total article size should be kept reasonably low, because there are many users that edit from low-speed connections. Connections to consider include dial-up connections, smartphones, and low-end broadband connections. The text on a 32 KB page takes about five seconds to load...

So from a technical point there does not seem to be a problem as had been suggested - very few people are doing edits anymore. I agree that the article should not be split and that the tag should be removed. Gandydancer (talk) 15:22, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

No, there are technical problems still even with some current technologies. The section you quoted also says this:

Mobile browsers can be a problem because these devices usually have little memory and a slow CPU; long pages can take too much time to process, if they can be fully loaded at all. Current mobile browsers and some older PC web browsers cannot correctly edit long pages because they crop the source text to 32 KB.

-- JTSchreiber (talk) 04:55, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Support (1) Personally, I do not like to navigate articles of this size, and it's a real pain to navigate the references when there's that many. (2) Technical problems still exist for large articles, as I posted above. (3) The article is well over the suggested article size in the Wikipedia standards. (4) I think ease-of-editing is still a big issue even if few people are currently editing the article. Who knows whether this article might draw significant interest from other editors in the future? If it did, the current article size would be a hindrance. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 05:14, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Personally I prefer to see information confined to one page as much as possible and I don't understand why you find it difficult to "navigate the references" - what's so hard about clicking a reference number? As for the technical problems, as I said there is not much new information for now, thus little editing is going on. As for the future possibility that the article may grow larger, it could be split at that time. Gandydancer (talk) 11:53, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

* Navigating references - I was talking about more advanced reference navigation, but as long as you brought up basic navigation, I'll discuss that. WP:EASTEREGG says that editors should try to accomodate those who read printed copies of Wikipedia articles. Obviously, there's no link to click in that case.

* Technical problems - Not all technical problems are editing-related. For example, slow CPUs on mobile devices affect article display more than editing. Perhaps WP:SIZE could be reworded to make this more clear.

* Article editing - First, new information is not the only driver of article editing. Sometimes, editors decide to improve an article even though there's nothing new to be added. Second, my argument about the future is that the article's current size will make it difficult to edit; I wasn't talking about the possibility of the article getting larger in the future. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 04:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Anna, it's been almost a week and other than JTSchreiber no one has bothered to add input, so I believe we can assume that most readers do not find the article too long to navigate. I think you should remove the tag. Gandydancer (talk) 20:05, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Good plan. I will remove the tag. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:16, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Whoa - Who is checking the edits?

I made an edit last week where I mistakenly called Carol Browner "head of NOAA". I went in today and corrected my mistake, her title is actually Climate and Energy Policy Advisor. I return to find that my "fix" was termed vandalism and I got a little notice to stop vandalizing. The "head of NOAA" title remains in the article. I would recommend we don't leave that mistake in the article, but obviously I cannot remedy it myself. Can anyone advise or explain what is going on here?174.74.68.103 (talk) 00:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Here is the edit that was termed vandalism [12]. How can we stop these bots from messing up good edits?174.74.68.103 (talk) 00:10, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't a bot, you can contact User:WikiCopter and have a discussion. I notice your edit that was termed vandalism doesn't resemble what you state above, which is better; maybe you should have made that edit. —Prhartcom (talk) 13:55, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I have fixed this. The site did use the word "czar", however perhaps "director" is better. Gandydancer (talk) 15:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

BTW 174, it is hard to understand why you do not join up... Frankly, when I see a number and not a name I look at the edit from a different viewpoint and expect the worst... Gandydancer (talk) 16:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, the issue was that the edit was clearly not checked, and a vandalism notice put on my talk page - using an IP may not be everyone's favorite choice, but it is legal and not vandalism.174.74.68.103 (talk) 18:03, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Don't be paranoid. I once got a vandalism warning for adding the song "Please Warm My Weiner" to the Bo Carter article. Very nice person - he just was not aware that weiners were called weiners way back then, thus "weiners" could not have yet been called weiners either. Get it? :=) Carry on! Gandydancer (talk) 01:00, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Got it! Thanks ~ I'll just erase it from my talk page so I don't get a bad rep. 174.74.68.103 (talk) 01:43, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Well do what you want. For myself, I do NOT like it when anyone erases anything from their talk page. On the other hand, to read my page one would think I must be doing stupid edits all the time, when actually I have answered the complaints with a reasonable response - on their talk page. I have not looked at the way others handle this...perhaps I should fix my talk page? Gandydancer (talk) 15:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

6 Month Anniversary - where are we?

I just caught this piece on Democracy Now, and thought to share with the editors here. After viewing it, it seemed this article could use some updating, we may have been relying on the news that hits mainstream only, but to our detriment. The Democracy Now segment: [13] The article by author being interviewed, Terry Tempest Williams [14]174.74.68.103 (talk) 18:08, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I watched that today. How do you think it should be added? Gandydancer (talk) 01:12, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

That's an interesting question, I hadn't thought of adding the Democracy Now or Orion articles, though now that I think of it, they should perhaps go in the further reading section. My thoughts were that Terry brings to light many aspects of the 'spill' that we haven't touched on in this article. It may be challenging if no mainstream media source has covered it, at least as far as I understand the way Wikipedia works. If an independent scientist was interviewed by an 'alternative' media source, would that be acceptable for Wikipedia? I could bring some of the topics and sources here to let editors look at them before adding them, as I am not very clear on all of the rules. 174.74.68.103 (talk) 01:42, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

You are correct that the lack of mainstream news coverage makes it challenging to get this material into Wikipedia. The most important issue here is undue weight. This policy says that Wikipedia articles are supposed to give priority to ideas that get large amounts of coverage in reliable sources, while ideas that get almost no coverage in such sources are usually not covered in Wikipedia. (After taking a quick look at Democracy Now and Orion, it's unclear to me whether they count as reliable sources.) Since Williams' claims have not been verified by any scholars, her work is a fringe theory at this point. While a fringe theory can receive coverage in Wikipedia, it generally doesn't unless the fringe theory has received coverage from mainstream sources. Who is the independent scientist you are referring to? Williams? -- JTSchreiber (talk) 05:29, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I took another look at Orion and don't think it should generally be used as a source. (See the new section on Orion below.) While I haven't looked at Democracy Now in more detail, I suspect that the conclusions would be similar to that for Orion. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 05:39, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Orion magazine as a source

Orion magazine has been used as a source in the article and there has been some discussion of using it more. After looking into this magazine, I don't think it is an acceptable source, except perhaps if used with attribution to show the opinion of an Orion article author who is particularly notable in a field directly related to the DH oil spill. My arguments against the used of Orion are:

Orion is not a mainstream news source. When discussing news sources, WP:RS only mentions mainstream sources, suggesting that other sources are of questionable reliability.
Orion has a POV in their mission: "It is Orion’s fundamental conviction that humans are morally responsible for the world in which we live" ([15]). This is problematic, given that WP:RS says that journals which exist to promote a POV should not be considered reliable, except as sources of the opinions of those who hold that POV. While Orion is not a journal per se, I think the general concept still applies, especially since Orion is not a mainstream source.

I will be removing the Orion material from the article. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 05:30, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Both Orion and Democracy Now can be considered to have a biased POV. While I don't hold the same POV as either one, I wouldn't source Infowars or anything on that end of the spectrum as an unbiased source either. Smokeybehr (talk) 08:10, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Deletions by User:RaseaC

Apparently this user is deleting valid questions posed on this talk page, claiming that it's not a forum. [16][17] He also patrols Talk:Facebook rather closely, which is where I ran afoul of him. This is an active talk page I haven't looked at in a while, so I'm not sure how much was lost. Wnt (talk) 21:19, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I removed irrelevant questions as per WP:TALK. The purpose of talks is to discuss improving an article, not discuss the subject in general, and it certainly isn't the place to pose questions. I can confirm that I also have Facebook on my watchlist and remove irrelevant comments when I see them. I'd like to draw attention to the fact that this post itself contravenes [WP:TALK]], has been made simply because the OP is upset with me, and would be better placed on the admin noticeboards. raseaC^{talk to me} 21:44, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Could you please quote the relevant text from the Talk page guidelines that support you claim that asking questions on a talk page violates Wikipedia policy. Viralmeme (talk) 14:29, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Is vs. Was (again)

8==> It was changed to "was" again. It may be time, but please, let's first get consensus here. The oil has stopped coming out. Has it all landed? Does that matter? Is it over? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:49, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how "was" is operative here, unless the mass of oil in the Gulf has magically disappeared. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:57, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

It's not so much that "was" is technically incorrect if you're talking strictly about the process of gapping the gusher. The problem is that by saying "was" in the lead, the casual reader might think the whole thing is over. There needs to be a succinct, efficient way to convey that it's far from over. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:05, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Which I have now tried to do. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:21, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

One fact missing from the intro is the addition of dispersants plus the fact that the oil came from deep undersea makes this a unique, "3-dimensional event" that is ongoing until the underwater hydrocarbon 'plumes' connected to this event are no longer detectable (Federal & independent scientists continue to argue over this). This should perhaps be added to the intro, and present tense reinstated. To leave the use of dispersant out of the intro is quite misleading. The amount of oil in this event was record-breaking, but so was the amount of dispersant as well as the fact that it had never been used undersea before. It is almost more of an oil-dispersant spill if we were to get technical (as we should).

"It is a spill like no other, taking place a mile or so under water and spreading in layers of more-shallow water and on the surface, unlike more-common spills that occur on the surface alone. The oil and dispersant chemicals used to dissolve it are potent variables in the biochemical equation of life across the Gulf, said several marine biologists, oceanographers and wildlife experts are working to understand how large or long-lasting the region's problems may become.

"This is a three-dimensional spill," said Columbia University oceanographer Ajit Subramaniam. "The physics, the chemistry and the biology action are very different when you have oil released from below."[18]174.74.68.103 (talk) 21:21, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

(not sure if the above IP comment should have own section. pls fix if deemed so.)

I have changed it back to "is". Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:12, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Here is a statement by Rep. Markey, who's the congressperson responsible for getting the video of the oil leak online. It speaks to the question of whether this is 'over': “The true tragedy of this disaster would be if we turned our backs on the Gulf region after the well has been sealed. Only when the Gulf coast is environmentally recovered and economically renewed can we say that this disaster has ended.” [19] 174.74.68.103 (talk) 04:12, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Needs to be "was" for all logistical and cultural reasons. Freedom Bringer (talk) 09:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Meaning what? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:05, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

IMHO I think that perhaps it should be "was", once the leak has been permanently sealed, in so far as you would have 'the oil spill' and 'the aftermath of the oil spill'. As there is still oil in and on the water and in the sand, no one would argue that the impact of the oil spill is still being felt and will continue to be felt for many years to come.

However this "was" vs "is" can only be attributed after the fact, once it has indeed been established that the leak is permanently sealed and that it will not leak again. However, as with many issues, this can also be seen from the opposite viewpoint, wherein, due to the simple fact that there is still oil on and in the water and on the sand, the oil spill has not yet ended. Hmmmm...... CybergothiChé (talk) 10:40, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Some considerations:

Is oil still coming out? (probably not)
Is there oil that remains in the gulf that will still make landfall?
Do the people affected use "is" or "was"?
What term does the press currently use? (probably most important from wiki's POV)
Is a major cleanup still underway?

What am I missing here?

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:52, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Some current news results (when searching for "spill is" "spill was"):

BP's share price rose after the spill was declared officially over. [20] (Business)
This oil spill is our Iraq War. [21] (Journalism)
BP Oil Spill Aftermath [22] (Business)

Since most of the current coverage is business (how much BP will have to spend on cleanup and compensation), I think "was" has a louder voice at the moment. Thundermaker (talk) 13:25, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Some examples help, but learning what the majority says could be the clincher. It's a tough call considering :the two extremes:

BP would declare this "was" exactly 4 seconds after it was capped.
In supermarket terms, a spill on isle 4 is present tense until it gets cleaned up.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:02, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing was about this. The flow of oil has stopped. The story had just begun, imo.

Oil lingering in waters off Alabama, Mississippi and Florida beaches [23]

Efforts to clean up Gulf oil continue in Louisiana[24]

Scientists dispute White House claim that spilled BP oil has vanished[25]174.74.68.103 (talk) 21:37, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Battle against oil far from over [26]

Oil coming up through the sand in Florida [27] 174.74.68.103 (talk) 23:28, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Ann Thompson with NBC news has been in New Orleans since the spill began. She is on the evening news every few days. She appeared night before last and reported that there is still plenty of oil remaining and coming ashore into the marshes, there is oil in the currents, and an unknown amount of oil remains on the ocean floor - in other words, the well may be capped but the spill is not over. She also said that it will take several fishing seasons to know for sure how badly affected the fishing industry will be. So, I strongly feel that the article should read is and not was. Gandydancer (talk) 00:09, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Where grammatically appropriate, was should be employed. It would still, for instance, be more appropriate to say it is the largest accidental marine oil spill but that the Deepwater Horizon oil spill was an oil spill . It would be appropriate to use is when referring to continuing events (clean-up, incomplete investigations, legal proceedings). It seems to be a mute point however, most of the article appears to be in line. --Labattblueboy (talk) 12:00, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

The tense was changed again, and i have changed it back to is. There are still reports of oil sightings and oil-removal teams are still in employ. It looks like the consensus here is to leave the tense present for now. 174.74.68.103 (talk) 22:50, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Misc

I have removed the reference to Michael Williams' testimony re the "inhibited" general alarm from the description of the explosion. First, its inclusion implies that inhibiting the alarm in some way contributed to the catastrophe, when in fact inhibiting the general alarm is standard practice in vessels of all types, and it actually did not prevent the system from shutting down. See the statement from Transocean [[28]] or the comment made by a former DWH captain at the "Deepwater Horizon alarms were switched off 'to help workers sleep'" discussion thread at the "gCaptain" professional mariners' site (Wikipedia will not allow me to link directly to the site). In addition, DWH chief mechanic Michael Brown testified that contrary to what Williams claimed, the gas alarms did go off that night, several times [[29]] . --75.42.93.197 (talk) 09:56, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Policy regarding testing of alarms

Q. Was the general alarm inhibited?

A. No, Sir.

Q. Was it in manual mode?

A. Yes it was.

Q. And why is the general alarm in a manual mode?

A. We have numerous ones go off, our sensors, and so if they go off and don't get acknowledged, then the general alarm will go off and alarm everybody else. So we had them in a manual mode so we had the power to go and hit the general alarm ..

Q. With regard to the sequence of alarms .. Were those alarms before or after the jolt?

A. After the jolt ..

USCG/BOEM Board of Investigation (Re: Deepwater Horizon) Viralmeme (talk) 15:30, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Rig photo caption

The caption says that "Parts of the rig providing buoyancy are invisible below the waterline in this picture." This could be worded better as objects below the waterline always create buoyancy. I suppose the author was trying to say that the rig flaots, so I suggest saying " The rig floats". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.106.239.157 (talk) 12:02, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

oil spill

http://blog.sina.com.cn/jkgzs000

http://blog.sina.com.cn/jkgzs000 http://blog.sina.com.cn/jkgzs000 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.6.146.81 (talk) 08:17, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

EPA News release 11/12/10

The article talks about dioxins, which are cancer causing chemicals that could be released during the burning of the oil. The article also talked about the recent sucessful attemps to control the spread of the oil to land through "situ burning" and a total of 411 burns were conducted and 410 were quantified, burning off around 220000 to 313000 barrels of oil. The EPA made reports that the level of dioxins that could potentially be spread by the burning and through the reports it would seem that the level of dioxins are very low. http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/d0cf6618525a9efb85257359003fb69d/6a2165dcf5f0bb5f852577d9005acf94!OpenDocument ^[2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tam Tran91 (talk • contribs) 11:23, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

How many gallons is a barrel?

On the top of the article it states "4.9 million barrels ... or 185 million gallons" but later, it shows "4.9 million barrels (205.8 million gallons)" in the vol and extent section.173.180.214.13 (talk) 02:50, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I see several other wrong numbers as well and the ref in the lede is an old one. Here's a new ref from PBS: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2010/08/new-estimate-puts-oil-leak-at-49-million-barrels.html I'll fix it tomorrow if no one else gets to it first. Also, maybe I missed it but I suppose we should add that the EPA has sued them.Gandydancer (talk) 08:36, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

White House oil spill commission report

Can I see it online or download it? I can't find any link on this page or anywhere else. Can anybody post a link? --ML5 (talk) 13:09, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not meaning to be overly picky, but most (if not all) of the references in Finding of fault are from newspapers that have carried the story of the commission's report. Ideally, the report itself should be referenced, either online or a paper copy, not just a newspaper picking bits out (unless "the New York Times quotes the report as saying . . ." is used). Also, when BP release a statement, can't a reference to the actual statement be found, not just a newspaper reporting about it? Lastly, the quoted text at the end seems to come from "Oil Spill Commission, Final Report", but the references are to newspapers. I'm going to change that one.--ML5 (talk) 12:28, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Found it! It's here: http://www.oilspillcommission.gov --ML5 (talk) 17:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Ha ha ML5, I really enjoyed your "cunningly disguised" note! Best, Gandy Gandydancer (talk) 17:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I have added that reference at the end of the last sentence of the "Finding of Fault" section, but I seem to have made a formatting mistake in the template and I cannot see what I did wrong. Maybe somebody could have a look and fix it so that the footnote looks better than it does now?--Gautier lebon (talk) 10:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

"Ideally, the report itself should be referenced..." Some may consider that ideal, but Wikipedia policy does not. The commission's report is a primary source; secondary sources, like The New York Times, are generally preferred in Wikipedia articles. See WP:PRIMARY. Also, "the New York Times quotes the report as saying" is generally not correct wording on Wikipedia unless there is controversy about the Times' interpretation and the controversy is published in reliable sources. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 05:11, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. If you read the report you will see that is actually a secondary source as defined by Wikipdeia:--Gautier lebon (talk) 13:50, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Secondary sources are second-hand accounts, at least one step removed from an event.

The report summarizes the results of other reports and investigations. Why cite what a journalist thinks that the report says when you can cite the report itself? And, in any case, it is not prohibited to cite primary sources so long as they are quoted verbatim and not interpreted. What the Wikipedia policy says is:--Gautier lebon (talk) 13:50, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources, though primary sources are permitted if used carefully. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors. Appropriate sourcing can be a complicated issue, and these are general rules. Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are appropriate on any given occasion is a matter of common sense and good editorial judgment, and should be discussed on article talk pages.

.

This sort of problem has come up before and you can read it here under the "Ecology" heading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Deepwater_Horizon_oil_spill/Archive_7 Gandydancer (talk) 16:54, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Similar but not identical. In the archived thread, the question was whether to include a reference to a BP Report. That was clearly a primary source. It is my view that the White House report, being a compliation of information obtained from many sources, is a secondary source.--Gautier lebon (talk) 18:39, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Gautier lebon, I understand that secondary sources are one step away from an event. The question is what is the event in the Finding of Fault section. You are arguing that the event is the spill, while I'm arguing that the event is the finding of fault itself.

Also, I just realized that my first posting is a little vague. I'm not arguing that the current (and very limited) use of the report should be removed. I was only intending to argue against replacement of the existing news sources with the report itself. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 06:28, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

JT, thank you for your thougthful response. I think that we are in full agreement. The White House report is an excellent secondary source with respect to what happened before and during the spill, but it is indeed a primary source regarding finding-of-fault. I agree that the current references to news sources should not be replaced by references to the report itself and I see that you agree to keep the current citation to the report, so that interested readers can read the original, if they want.--Gautier lebon (talk) 11:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Methane consuming bacteria

This news seems to be quite relevant, so I propose to add it. Beagel (talk) 17:33, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Gandydancer (talk) 13:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

However, there is more to the story although this didn't quite make headlines. From independent scientist Samantha Joye:

"Questioning the conclusion

But Dr. Joye says she remains unconvinced. Among her qualms: The area is not well stocked with trace elements the bacteria need to survive – among them, copper, which bacteria specifically use to deal with the methane. Shortages of copper, as well as other trace elements, likely would have slammed the brakes on the exponential growth in bacterial populations needed to get rid of the methane in fewer than four months.

The team may not have found any methane because the water masses holding it had moved out of the area, she suggests. Other teams have had difficulty trying to find water masses they measured previously, she notes.

"I would be thrilled if I could sit here and tell you, 'Yeah, the methane's all gone, isn't that wonderful?' " Joye says. But "500,000 tons of methane does not get microbially consumed in three months." 174.74.68.103 (talk) 19:46, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Ian MacDonald has reservations as well. This information should be added to the article also. http://www.npr.org/2011/01/06/132706612/study-finds-bacteria-ate-most-methane-from-bp-well Gandydancer (talk) 20:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Petroleum by-products found in Gulf seafood

This information appears to be outdated and misleading. Reading this section leads readers to believe seafood from the Gulf of Mexico is hazardous. New research has refuted this evidence.

Christine Patrick, spokesperson for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration released a statement last week saying they have opened up 4,123 square miles of federal water for the harvesting of Red Royal shrimp. Additionally, Patrick said, “Testing is showing that the seafood from all over the Gulf, all species, all from the water column are testing clean, not by a small margin -- by a huge margin.”

The NOAA consulted with the with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration before making the decision to open this waters.

Stories on these reports can be found at these pages:

http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2011/02/noaa-reopens-gulf-waters-for-deep-water-shrimp-fishing/

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/02/08/gulf-seafood-safe-eatfor/?test=latestnews

Seth Irby (talk) 01:00, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

IS or WAS

"But at Elmer's Island refuge, there are new tar balls coming ashore. Apparently, a mat of oil is in the subtidal zone just offshore and now it's coagulating again and creating a fresh supply of oil." [30]

Oil is still washing up and the human toll is just beginning to show - why do we call this oil spill a thing of the past? This was an earlier discussion which looks to have moved to archives... What are your thoughts? 174.74.68.103 (talk) 01:03, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

WAS, however nowhere does it say that new information can't be added. I just added something the other day. Gandydancer (talk) 11:51, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing it to my attention. I am changing it back to IS until consensus is reached here. This is the change, almost 2 weeks ago. Gandy, where were you? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:46, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, I will admit to a knee-jerk reaction when I said WAS. Anna, I know you have good judgement and when I saw your remark I put some more thought into the question. Here is how I am now looking at it: If I would happen to spill my coffee on the floor right now, I would continue to call it a "spill" until I cleaned it up. The Gulf oil is far from being cleaned up, so perhaps IS a spill is the proper way to refer to it. Gandydancer (talk) 14:05, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I might be leaning toward WAS. But what I think isn't important. I changed it back because agreement involving others is important. I think you are a good, conscientious editor. Our most important role here is to ensure jurisprudence, and not allow a sneaky swap with no edit summary. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:18, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

The message box at the top of the article references 11 direct deaths and 2 "oil-related." The reference even states:

"The deaths reported Wednesday were not tied to the containment operation. The Coast Guard said the workers had been involved in cleanup operations did [sic] that their deaths did not appear to be work related."

This was a suicide and a "swimming" incident, no other detail given, obviously not "oil-related." My edits to remove these are getting reverted, what's up with that? 98.204.142.107 (talk) 03:56, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

My 2 cents: I remember both of these incidents when they happened, and they were reported as related to the disaster... undisputed. The suicide was a man who made his living on his boat. It was widely reported on mainstream media. The swimming death was due to the chemicals in the oil/dispersant. 174.74.68.103 (talk) 04:20, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

A boat captain committed suicide possibly due to loss of business but this was never proven, still not "oil-related." The swimming death was in a "swimming pool" as reported by Adm. Thad Allen NYTimes, nothing to do with oil or dispersants. 98.204.142.107 (talk) 04:51, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree, that info needs to be deleted. Gandydancer (talk) 11:46, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

We have a source for the suicide that makes the connection to the spill. Quote: "...the 12th person to die from BP’s oil disaster...". The pool accident should go unless sourced appropriately.TMCk (talk) 13:23, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

It has been estimated that at least 30 people committed suicide related to the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Should they be listed as deaths on the Exxon Valdez page as well? In this case, we are not even able to say for certain that the death is related - friends said he was "despondent", but no one had any idea that he had even planned suicide, thus no one knows for certain why he did it. Gandydancer (talk) 15:03, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

First, this is not the Exxon Valdez article. Secondly, we go by the sources; So unless there is another source that clearly refutes the one given there is not much room left.TMCk (talk) 15:38, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

The source you're referring to (http://workinprogress.firedoglake.com/aboutus/) is an activist's personal blog. It's obviously inaccurate and either way doesn't meet notability requirements, especially for a high-profile article like this one with revision control. 98.204.142.107 (talk) 01:29, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

You're right about the source and it could/should be replaced with this one (which btw counts 13 death total):"Wednesday's deaths mean that 13 people have now died in connection with the Deepwater Horizon accident." TMCk (talk) 03:29, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Just because you can find a reference for 2 deaths related to the spill does not mean that wikipedia needs to reflect info from a couple of sites when multiple good sources do not consider the suicide and some other death - we're not even sure how that person died - as part of the death toll. I have removed that information. Gandydancer (talk) 00:49, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

In mainstream media, the suicide was always said to be due to the spill. This needs to be added back because it has good refs. If you are arguing that 'other sources' do not include these 2 deaths, please go ahead and share those sources - otherwise it's just your word against RS. 174.74.68.103 (talk) 01:27, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I do feel that it is appropriate to include in the article to show the fact that the incident caused untold grief for the people involved. I lived in Minnesota when the small farms were being lost to large corporate farming. It was heartbreaking and there were plenty of suicides. I live on the coast of Maine and I am well aware of what our local men and women are going through as they are losing their way of life as third or more generations as fishermen. If you want to say something like the suicide was reported as as the 13th death, that seems reasonable. But to call it a death in the same way that the men on the rig were deaths and list it with the deaths, that is IMO not appropriate. Gandydancer (talk) 02:26, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

This section and everything about it doesn't make sense

Deepwater_Horizon_oil_spill#Moving_Forward Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:34, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Fully agree. This section does not make sense and should be removed. Beagel (talk) 06:50, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I feel that it is quite worthwhile because it offers a good closure in that it states that neither the government nor the industry can insure future safety alone, but must work together in the future. I did go ahead and add it to the previous section where it seems to fit better. Please see what you think and change it if you still feel it is not appropriate. Gandydancer (talk) 12:34, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Spill flow rate: "They Were Purposefully Trying to Deceive Everyone"

Ira Leifer has just come out with some new information you can see here. Would you all be able to help me figure out where in the article this would be included? 174.74.68.103 (talk) 22:57, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

A synopses: Dr. Ira Liefer, a marine scientist at the University of Santa Barbara and a member of the initial oil-flow estimate team, says that “academic freedom is not being respected” and recalls how a lowball estimate became the backbone of the national spill narrative.

Mr. Liefer says, for example, that the team was denied quality video of the gushing well and was forced to work with BP-provided images that seemed to have been intentionally taped by pointing a camera at a high-quality computer screen. In fact, he could actually see the outlines of the screen. And when the team arrived at a spill rate of “19,000 barrels a day or higher,” the government press release conveniently omitted the “or higher” part. Leifer scrambled to call news outlets to correct his own estimate. Source 174.74.68.103 (talk) 00:11, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually that info is not new. They made that complaint at the time they were doing an estimate and it may still be in some of the references. And that the government and BP were far too "friendly" was obvious If you go back through the talk pages you will find that some editors complained that some editors appeared to be trying to under-report the figures as well. It was said back then (on the talk page) that reparations would be based on the amount of oil that was released - something we all know now - and certainly there was an effort to use the lower figures here on wikipedia. I have no doubt that at least one or two editors had some sort of connection to the industry, but one can hardly come out and say that. Though don't misunderstand me, I am not suggesting that wikipedia policy was abused - we all have a right to push our point of view. Gandydancer (talk) 01:24, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

If you listen to the interview, there is some new information. The fact that Ira knew the exact type of ROV being used had HD cameras on them, yet BP lied and said they only this sh*tty tape, which it turns out was a video of a computer screen playing the tape. That is new information. 174.74.68.103 (talk) 04:50, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Did they lie? where is the proof that they had higher quality at that time, maybe that was the best quality they had available.

Having HD cameras does not mean that an HD feed was available. For instance on the Oceaneering site some of the video is high quality and some is fairly low quality - it could have been a low quality/HD data stream to their sh*tty system which they videod - lets face it having a base on land and feeding a data stream to it from sea would not necessarily always be high quality when it arrived.

Guys, if you say "I have no doubt that at least one or two of the editors had some sort..." then you have said it lol, saying "but one can hardly come out and say that" does not make the previous text invisible !

No, we do not have a right to push our point of view. We have a right to establish our point of view is notable, is not fringe and ensure it gets a mention in the correct proportion within the article. WP:WEIGHT

Lets try and stay WP:NPOV Chaosdruid (talk) 06:13, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Chaosdruid, I do not need a sermon from you. It would not be appropriate to accuse another editor and I didn't. As for pushing a point of view, we all do that, but some people just won't admit it. If you prefer to call it "establish" that's fine too. I see that you have established your point of view that one would need "proof" that they had a higher quality tape. No, we don't - the only "proof" we need is a reference to show that a member of the study group said they did. It is not for you or me to decide who's telling the truth, all we may do is provide information with references. And, if you are calling this a "fringe" theory, you have clearly not followed this story. Leifer has been mentioned in dozens of articles and the Santa Barbara group can hardly be called fringe. Gandydancer (talk) 06:50, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

And I do not need to remind you that you were not the only person in the discussion, nor that I was not actually directing that proof comment at you as you were not the one that said it? Perhaps also you missed where I said "is not fringe"

As for the proof comments you made, yes we do need proof if we are to say "they lied" - the point is that we can only say "this person said" or "that person claimed" and within the confines of WP:VERIFIABILITY, WP:WEIGHT, WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV.

A sermon? lets keep the discussions on content, not editors possible motives or OR about who lied. This talk page is to discuss the article content, it is not an off topic discussion page and a lot of the previous comments in this particular section are just that. Discussions about what editors motives may be is probably fine on users talk pages, and that is really where they should have been. As an experienced editor you should know that. Chaosdruid (talk) 07:14, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

That's right Chaosdruid, you do not need to remind me that I am not the only person in the discussion nor that the proof comment was not directed at me. Why do you feel that I should comment only on an issue that was directed at my comments if it is related to what is or is not proper to add to the article? As for your advise, "yes we do need proof if we are to say "they lied" - the point is that we can only say "this person said" or "that person claimed", I believe that if you read my post you will see that that is exactly what I said. Regarding your fringe comments, in my experience when an editor uses a clickable "fringe" or "weight" I have assumed that they feel I need to educate myself re wikipedia's fringe or weight policy. If that was not your intent, I would suggest that some or most editors may see it as a suggestion that they need help with understanding proper policy. And finally, as for my feelings that some editors may have had a strong point of view because of some sort of relationship to the industry, as long as wikipedia policy was not abused, so what? If I happened to be a fisherman and felt that the spill had damaged my business I'd want to be sure that the article reflected the damage that had been done to my fishing grounds, and there certainly is no reason that I could not join in with the work of editing the article. Gandydancer (talk) 13:57, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

174, I watched the video and I'd now agree that there is new information. Here was the old ref that was used: http://www.ia.ucsb.edu/pa/display.aspx?pkey=2258 I remember that there were complaints re the quality of the video, but a quick google did not turn up with anything. It is interesting to see the position they were in. Gandydancer (talk) 15:05, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Or alternatively you could have just said "Ah, you were directing all those comments and links to the IP editor"

It is true that there is new information, although the relevance is not clear to me due to the press release of the Plume Team:

"On May 27, the Team issued an Interim Report that established an estimated range for the minimum possible spillage rate but did not issue an estimate for a possible maximum value because the quality and length of the video data could not support a reliable calculation. Instead, they requested, and received, more extensive videos from British Petroleum (BP)." [31]

Chaosdruid (talk) 19:24, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Reactions

The reactions sections right now contains only one sentence: "Reactions to the oil spill, from various officials and interested parties, ranged from blame and outrage at the damage caused by the spill, and spills in the past, to call for greater accountability on the part of the U.S. government and BP, including new legislation dealing with preventative security and cleanup improvements.Reactions to the oil spill, from various officials and interested parties, ranged from blame and outrage at the damage caused by the spill, and spills in the past, to call for greater accountability on the part of the U.S. government and BP, including new legislation dealing with preventative security and cleanup improvements." Although there is the main article named Reactions to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill and this section should be just a summary of reactions, the current version provides only trivia without getting any reasonable summary of what the reactions are/were. By my understanding, there is no mean to keep this section as it currently is. I think that reactions are important part of the spill; however, in this case this summary has to provide little bit more detailed overview. Beagel (talk) 06:47, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Beagel, you write very well - could you come up with something? Gandydancer (talk) 14:47, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Can I Trust This Article?

How can I trust this article, if BP, Haliburton, the government & the REPs are so fucking ignorant to dump shit loads of oil into the Gulf of Mexico - how can I know they haven't tampered with this article? I like Wikipedia, 99% of the time, it's accurate, correct & neutral - but some of the more 'stir-up-the-shit' articles, I question it...

Follow the references, do the research, and see for yourself. --T H F S W (T · C · E) 03:27, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Remember this is a Discussion for improvement of the article not a forum (Darkspartan4121 (talk) 03:55, 9 March 2011 (UTC))

Page size and links

The page is getting a little large and bloated. At 17,000 words it seems a little excessive, it takes 19 screens to scroll down, at 1280x1024 resolution.

For example the section "Consequences" is massive, and has a "see also" to Economic_and_political_consequences_of_the_Deepwater_Horizon_disaster There is a vastly greater amount of detail on the Deepwater Horizon oil spill page (this one) than on the linked page. I suspect someone started to do the transfers but stopped.

Efforts to protect the coastline and marine environments - same, massive and with no "see also" or "main" page.

Volume and extent of oil spill- same again, massive and with a list of events as the only "main" which is not really accurate, should be "see also" as it is just a list of a series of events.

How about people try and get the linked pages to "main page"s and just leave a synopsis in each section on this one?

Chaosdruid (talk) 06:36, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree that these sections should be better summarized and more detailed information should be moved into specific articles. Beagel (talk) 13:58, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it is very long and should be greatly shortened. I agree that Volume and extent and Efforts to protect the coastline and marine environments would be best linked. That should shorten the article considerably. However, I feel that the Consequences section be left on the main page for now since this section is likely to continue to be in the news. Gandydancer (talk) 14:34, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree that this article is too large and should be split. I think that the Consequences section is the best place to start because it is the largest section and has the potential to keep growing. The Economic and political consequences of the Deepwater Horizon disaster article isn't really a match for the consequences section, which is broader. Ecology and health do not fit under economic and political consequences, although I suppose one alternative would be to remove "economic and political" from the article's title. (By the way, I don't think that that article ever served as a spin-out from the DH oil spill article, but was just set up independently.)

I agree that the timeline article does not make an appropriate main article for the "volume and extent of oil spill" section. The timeline should include aspects of (just about) every section in the DH oil spill article. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 06:06, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Opps, I made my post in haste and it does not make any sense at all. Ignore it. Gandydancer (talk) 12:38, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

[1] ttp://www.physorg.com/news203868326.html

[2] ttp://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/d0cf6618525a9efb85257359003fb69d/6a2165dcf5f0bb5f852577d9005acf94!OpenDocument

[1]

[2]