Talk:Deepwater Horizon/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

First article

My first article. Orniphobe 02:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Good job.--Supertouch (talk) 16:57, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Latitude, Longitude

Any geo co-ordinates available to map this?
--Atikokan (talk) 02:21, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

There are coordinates on the page about the explosion (here). - Gump Stump (talk) 15:52, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

of which. (Left something out?)

of which WHAT? On September 2, 2009, Deepwater Horizon drilled on the Tiber oilfield the deepest oil well ever drilled with a total depth of 35,055 feet (10,685 m), of which 4,132 feet (1,259 m). Sentences without endings don't make much sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.232.94.33 (talk) 21:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Of water. Sentence fixed. Beagel (talk) 21:32, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Sections

Explosion is a final part of the rig's history and therefore I think it suits better as a subsection of the history section. Beagel (talk) 21:31, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

But some of the description of the rig is necessary to understand the explosion section, for example, the process the rig was engaged in at the time of the explosion.--Supertouch (talk) 21:49, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Merge discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result was no consensus to merge Deepwater Horizon drilling rig explosion into Deepwater Horizon.--Labattblueboy (talk) 15:40, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Support reduce confusion, if you're searching for deepwater horizon you are most likely looking for the latest information on the status of the vessel and investigation in to the accident. The current article is lacking in information anyway so it makes sense to merge the two articles.
  • Support Seeing that the main article was little more than stub prior to the addition of material regarding the explosion, it seems unnecessary to have a separate page for the explosion.--Supertouch (talk) 23:08, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. THe article about Deepwater Horizon is not a stub anymore and it deserves its own article notwithstanding the explosion. Beagel (talk) 04:01, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
    Comment. Deepwater Horizon has drilled the world's deepest oil and gas well at 35,050 feet total vertical depth, so it is definitely notable oil rig.Beagel (talk) 04:32, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
  • That's not a reason to prefer a merge. Instead, we look to other concerns like size, relevance to the article, and the relation of the two topics. Ask yourself this question. Wouldn't someone looking at the rig article be interested in the accident, and vis versa? That question, plus the practical concerns, including the increase in difficulty, consistency, and management, and you'll realize why we commonly use size as the split proxy. In this case, that's not an issue. Shadowjams (talk) 07:14, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose I agree with Beagel. Deepwater Horizon does deserve a separate article. The article about explosion is likely to get bigger as the news develop. Thanks. Tuscumbia (talk) 12:45, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Support I concur with the original proposal, there seems to be only limited content on this page except for that about the explosion. FienX (talk) 18:07, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
    Actually there is a number of reliable sources about the rig publsihed before the accident. And as it drilled the deepest oil well ever and was one of the largest semi-submersible oil rigs, it is notable notwithstanding the accident. Beagel (talk) 20:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Support Most material is duplicated across the two pages. Geoboffin (talk) 19:50, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
    Removed most of duplication. Beagel (talk) 20:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
    Even with the removal of duplicated material I see no need for two separate articles. The lede of WP:SPLIT suggests (i.e., does not list specific reasons for splitting a page, but I think two can reasons can be inferred) that the two most common reasons for splitting a page are page size and on section of an article becoming disproportional to the rest. The first reason does not apply here as each article has approximately 8.5 KG, while the guideline at WP:SPLIT says that the splitting articles of less than 30 KG is not justified by length alone. (Check my "calculations" using either User:Dr pda/prosesize.js or [1].) This leaves us with the second reason. In my opinion, combining the two pages would produce a page with about one half describing the rig itself and its history and the other half (or probably a little more) describing the explosion.--Supertouch (talk) 21:47, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Wait and see - if the explosion article doesn't increase substantially more by the time the story is out of the news it can be merged. However, if it does increase much more it would be undue weight to merge it in based on the current length of coverage of the rest of the rig's history. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:12, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
For the time being I agree we should wait until this incident is cycled out of the news before making a final decision, I think WP:UNDUE would actually support a merge not oppose it. The significance of the explosion and subsequent sinking of the rig is very significant to the article on the rig therefore justifying a major chunk of the (merged) article dealing with that.--Supertouch (talk) 22:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose Deepwater Horizon has notable events prior to this one. If you merge it now you will just have to split it later. In general when events like this occur, "wait and see" should be the approach taken before merging. Trying to determine whether to merge an article of a current event while that event is still occurring just doesn't make sense!! Argel1200 (talk) 00:16, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose They're two separate items, while related, really shouldn't be merged. (Something tells me the 'Explosion' page will grow substantially.)--The Navigators (talk)-May British Rail Rest in Peace. 01:48, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose I agree that they are two separate topics, and thus two separate articles. There is a lot of information in the 'Explosion' article that isn't in this one, and if they were merged, it would probably need to be split again later. —ems24 02:24, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose, especially if the 11 missing are confirmed/presumed dead. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 04:22, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Support - Clutter is a concern, but so is relevance. The original article is not large, and there's no compelling reason why the two should be separate. Shadowjams (talk) 07:12, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Support The article should be merged. The original article is small and thus, would become more relevant according to Wikipedia standards. Avs_Dps (talk) 11:32, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose, as per Beagel. Gerry (talk) 12:33, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose both act as stand alones, the disaster article is likley to grow significantly especially with onging investigations occuring and is an event notable on its own. Ottawa4ever (talk) 13:34, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose As per Argel1200. EaswarH (talk) 18:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Support. There is no reason why this can't be contained in the parent article. Resolute 19:34, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Support merge. They are not separate topics. Would we consider the construction, operation, or any other event to be a separate article? Obviously not. So why having the explosion as a separate article? In some cases this is done because the main article gets to big but here is not enough info to warrant splitting the info.-- P 1 9 9 • TALK 19:55, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now If the explosion's page gets too big we will have to split it anyway. I propose we wait before coming to a conclusion on this one. Acebulf (talk) 20:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Support. It is not is the custom of Wikipedia to create separate articles on maritime disasters. For example, the sinking of the RMS Titanic was a serious, notable event in world history, but it does not currently constitute a separate article; it is part of the article on the ship.Bigturtle (talk) 21:16, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Support. Neither of the two articles have significantly differing information except that one concentrates on the incident and the other on the drilling rig itself. Even if the available information on the Deepwater Horizon disaster becomes substantial, it will not in and of itself justify two separate pages because the page outlining the Deepwater Horizon is not very comprehensive. In addition, BigTurtle's argument above makes perfect sense in that the Titanic is a much larger disaster in terms of potential historical impact, yet there is no separate page for the ship itself. Flybywire_e2c 23:51, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Support as it wasn't a major event, and the oil rig's article needs expanding anyway so this would be useful to add. Ggoere (talk) 12:12, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Support because there is repetition in both articles and they would both be better served by combining them. If the oil leakage becomes a major disaster, then that disaster would warrant its own article. Diiscool (talk) 13:53, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The article should simply mention the fate of the rig and not go into root cause analysis of the explosion. It might be an idea to create an article on offshore oil & gas incidents wherein the details of the explosion can be explored, developed and linked to the article about the rig Jonesinperth (talk) 02:28, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. If and when, in the fullness of time, the facts show the circumstances surrounding the end of the rig known as the Deepwater Horizon do not warrant a separate article, then (and only then) merge this article in with the primary article. In the meantime, keep the articles separate. //Don K. (talk) 06:55, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As a number of people have stated, let's wait until this cycles through. Two weeks should be enough time to see what develops. The way this is playing out, a merge might be the way to go since this isn't a "major" spill. Two weeks isn't a long time, I'd imagine. --Hourick (talk) 09:56, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose Easily notable both as split articles. Ingolfson (talk) 05:13, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Question Are all oil platorms inherently notable, like locations and popes? walk victor falk talk 15:10, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is a major event, which deserves an article on its own. Serketan 15:51, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose because of oil spill and deaths --DAI (Δ) 19:36, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Support but explosion is more notable than the platf. --DAI (Δ) 19:38, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This incident is certainly notable in its own right and many disasters have their own article. Also, with an oil slick the size of Jamaica, it's attracting ongoing attention. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:48, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose Just like many other articles, specific events (calamities/disasters, inaugurations, historic moments) that happen at specific structures have their own articles if they are historically important. This explosion/leak undoubtedly has become that, and will only become more important as the clean-up and effects of the spill become apparent. In fact, this article is just the place to expand on the future clean up, cleaning technologies, ecosystems, political impacts, etc- and not in the article concerning the structure itself. gloushire 16:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose People reading about the disaster should not be sent to the bottom of the page and/or distracted by all the technical specs of the rig. People reading about the rig should not be distracted by the minute details of the disaster timeline. Of course, those interested in both can always follow the link. Xenonice (talk) 04:46, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose Event is to important at the moment to be merged. Maybe merge in half a year or so. Amada44 (talk) 11:07, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Support Absolutely no need yet for separate articles. Reywas92Talk 12:07, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per Tuscumbia Cody574 14:07, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose The Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill deserves its own page and that title. Why are we making this so non-user friendly by not putting the word "Oil Spill" in that page title. The Exxon Valdez incident is called the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Who the heck cares about the drilling rig itself, or, will one year from now. It's the oil spill that is the news. Have you heard of the KISS theory? Keep it simple stupid! Myk60640 (talk) 14:20, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose The detail about the explosion and spill is to extensive to be included in the article about the rig 74.220.188.108 (talk) 15:15, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose I agree with Myk60640 that The Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill is the story, not the rig, or for that matter, even the explosion. Popsup (talk) 17:38, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose for various reasons already mentioned. At any rate, I believe the White House is calling this the BP oil spill, which may signify an official name designation for the disaster. Wrightchr (talk) 19:58, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge. Oil rig is/was independently notable beyond the spill for its accomplishment in 2009. The oil spill topic is an incident that originated at the rig, but has moved far beyond that, both literally and figuratively. 23skidoo (talk) 20:06, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge. The rig was a thing with its own history (the deepest well is pretty interesting), the explosion and spill is an event. The rig's entry has also existed for a couple of years, long before it was famous because of this event. Merging would cause the details of the event to dominate the details of the thing. UltraNurd (talk) 21:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose I agree that the rig is independtly notable. The oil spill is extremely notable and should be a seperate subject. For example the Great Chicago Fire is a seperate article from Chicago. Dincher (talk) 21:27, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose Both articles are notable, and trying to add this in to the rig article will only add clutter. --Falcorian (talk) 23:18, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose Because like others have posted, it is the spill and everything connected to it- the rig of course, the BOP failure, the formation, ongoing activities, and all contractor companies.
  • Oppose If I am to use a precedent, it seems that there are separate articles for LZ 129 Hindenburg and the Hindenburg disaster. This is quite similar in some respect. --Ambrosiaster (talk) 02:14, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose Let the separate article be the ever-changing lightening rod for recentism. Then as we get distance from the news story we can look at an eventual merge. --Kevin Murray (talk) 05:03, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose per the same reason I had or another current event article which much of the above was mentioned there not to mention the edit conflict potential. Sawblade5 (talk to me | my wiki life) 05:08, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose The event is notable on its own, and should have its own article. Merging it with this article would mean the combined article would be rather large, and also most of it would be about the explosion anyway. Dream Focus 07:27, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose The event is notable on its own, and over time the two articles will diverge even more, with this article including consequences of various kinds, and the other article covering the impact of the present location of the wrecked platform. -- Radagast3 (talk) 08:15, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The event is highly notable and deserves a separate article. Nsk92 (talk) 11:25, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I agree with Nsk92.--Александр Мотин (talk) 13:14, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
  • oppose. Using Exxon Valdez and the subsequent oil spill as an example, I feel this article should remain separate.--diswiz (talk) 0:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Datums

"...deepest oil well ever drilled with a total depth of 35,055 feet (10,685 m), of which 4,132 feet (1,259 m) was water"

This is meaningless unless you state Measured Depth (MD) or True Vertical Depth (TVD). I imagine it's TVD, as there are plenty of wells with greater MDs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.12.23.225 (talk) 14:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Both, MD and TVD are added. Could you please give example of oil well with deeper TVD? Beagel (talk) 08:02, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Someone needs to tweak the metre-feet conversions: MD is shown as 5m and also 5ft greater than TVD. Also, the rig description section cites a max drilling depth of 30 000ft; perhaps a parenthesised "deeper than its design capacity" or similar is in order to avoid confusion? Geoboffin (talk) 20:31, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps someone who understands the automatic conversions can address the fact that of the three depth numbers converted, two are accurate and one converts incorrectly--off by 3 meters. Instead of 10,680 meters, it should convert to 10,683 meters. At first I thought it rounds to the nearest 5, but then saw that the third conversion ends in a 9. What goes? Unclepea (talk) 15:02, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

New info

Actually all of this is a cover up by Obama since he demanded that the press stay silent on the cause of the topic. Actually North korean soldiers took a ship from North korea's navy base called the "Port Havana" in Cuba.Then it deviated and launched a mini sub of which shot 2 incendary torpedos on April 20. Then 2 days later it and it's suicide crew exploded the sub directly below the rig in attempt do destroy it.The reason is that it's owned by South Korean Hyundai which they've been at war with since 1953. And here's the site http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/how-did-the-oil-rig-explode-in-the-first-place-that-is-the-question/blog-313401/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by U.T. ROCKS (talk • contribs) 01:44, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Haha! That's fantastic. But seriously, that sounds like such a classic conspiracy theory and thus you're gonna have to show us a much more reliable source than that one link.

--Qwerty0 (talk) 16:09, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Was/Is

The Deepwater Horizon is owned by Transocean, even though it may be a wreck at the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico, at least until such time that the insurance underwriter, if any, pays Transocean for the loss. That's the law. Unless someone can come up with a citation that the payment has already been made, it should be kept in the present tense. I've changed it here and at Deepwater Horizon oil spill a couple of times already, and some editors keep reverting it. —QuicksilverT @ 16:12, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Sources

I am not sure if Billy-Bob politician from some parish in Louisiana would be considered a credible source for technical drilling rig matters --187.132.75.133 (talk) 06:29, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I just changed the crew complement from 130 to what it really was, 144. This incident has taught me some of the major news providers are horrible fact checkers. Orniphobe (talk) 11:04, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
I just deleted a few inaccurate sentences. She was capable of drilling in 10,000 and had drilled a well in about 9800' earlier in her career. She had no anchors, just DP with six generators and eight thrusters. She had beds and lifeboat space for 146, not 130, and not 144 that I mentioned earlier. The infobox was right. Orniphobe (talk) 13:38, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Marshall Islands??

Wait, does anyone know why it was registered in the Marshall Islands? I know, it's probably tax or legal loophole reasons, but what are the loopholes? What's the motive? Is that a common practice? (Look at the port of registry, Majuro. It's in the Marshall Islands.)

--Qwerty0 (talk) 16:03, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is usual practice with commercial and service vessels to use flag of convenience. Beagel (talk) 10:50, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Dynamic positioning

This article describes the Deepwater Horizon as being dynamically positioned. The Wiki page for Dynamic Positioning gives a good explaination of what this means. However, further down in this article, the following was written

"She had pontoons and a column that submerge when they are ballasted with sea water, lowering the rig. Chains and heavy anchors kept the rig in place.[13] with the reference being a newspaper. Using the Wiki definition of dynamic positioning, the use of chains and heavy anchors does not match up. A rig that uses anchors is not using dynamic positioning.

Perhaps a better reference than USA Today could be found to determine whether the Deepwater Horizon used anchors and chains (not well suitable in deep water) or used dynamic positioning (which is more likely). Throckmorton Guildersleeve (talk) 16:53, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

The source actually says "moored with anchor chains and computer controlled propellers." I misinterpreted the source when I rewrote that bit. My bad. I'm not sure if the source is wrong about DH using anchor chains, but I'll make it read per the source. Diderot's dreams (talk) 03:51, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
She had no anchors and no chain. I just deleted a couple of inaccurate sentences. Please see my post above on sources. Orniphobe (talk) 13:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Think about it: It may have used chains and anchors in shallow water, but in water over a mile deep — no way. The weight of multiple anchor chains over a mile long would have been enough to sink the rig and would not have provided the positioning stability needed for the task of dropping a drill string a mile through water and then drilling another six or seven miles below the seabed. GPS and servoed thrusters are the only way something like that could work.—QuicksilverT @ 22:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
That makes sense. I have found a source for the lack of anchors-- Transocean's fleet description. I am surprised this source has not been used in the article as it is easily found. That's the best way if you know a source is inaccurate and need to show it-- with another source. Unfortunately, it can be hard to take the word of editors with real world knowledge in the face of a reliable source. We don't have proof of folks credentials here, some points are put forward for monetary or emotional reasons, and some of us who must judge have limited real world knowledge of the topic. Diderot's dreams (talk) 18:14, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Leased to BP

Although Anadarko and Mitsui own interests in Macondo Prospect, the only operator of the field is BP. Therefore the, the rig was leased only by BP, not by all partners. Therefore, I will restore the version saying it was leased to BP. The link added by Kittybrewster talks about leases of Continental Shelf for hydrocarbons exploration, not about leases of drilling rigs. Beagel (talk) 04:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Photo

The proper lead photo seems to be the one of the rig prior to the explosion. The fire photo is more pertinent to the separate article about the explosion and disaster. We don't show Kennedy's corpse as the JFK article's lead nor do we show the wreckage of the Titanic as the lead for the ship's article. --Kevin Murray (talk) 05:11, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree Kevin, and I'm the one who placed the original photo after crop. The same photo is used in the other article. Stubbleboy (talk) 02:11, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
This image is a press agency photo and cannot be used per WP:NFCC2, because the agency took this photo to commercialize its use. Calliopejen1 (talk) 12:13, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Agree with K Murray and Stubbleboy. We should definitely try to find a photo of the rig prior to the explosion and fire -- not as a single photo article, but to add in addition to the flaming platform photo. I have added a {{reqphoto}} tag. N2e (talk) 21:39, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Disagree. Kennedy and the Titanic were unique and notable in their own rights before their untimely ends. The DH Rig was not -- the explosion is the only reason it is noteworthy. 68.174.85.172 (talk) 04:58, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

arithmetic inconsistency

'In September 2009, the rig drilled the deepest oil well in history at a vertical depth of 35,050 feet (10,680 m) and measured depth of 35,055 feet (10,685 m).'

This would imply that 5m = 5ft - clearly incorrect. Figures should be checked and adjusted. Ignorance is strength (talk) 14:10, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. Beagel (talk) 15:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Rated depth

I just added an item from the rig's specification in which it is speced at being in 10,000 feet of water and having a drilling depth of 30,000 feet from the Transocean's fleet spec The well was more than 5,000 feet deeper than the design specification on the company's fleet list. The way I read it the 35,000 record is 5,000 feet beyond its spec. However, it's possible that the drilling depth refers to its capabilities from the bottom onward (in which case the record would be within its cumulative spec of 40,000 feet). If anybody knows how to correctly read the spec it would be appreciated. Americasroof (talk) 08:22, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Questionable sources

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/may2010/spil-m14.shtml

The "world socialist web site"? You're kidding, right? As far as I'm concern, this entire article is made irrelevant by association. Whatever happened to unbiased facts? Hopefully we can find a scientist, someone with a brain, to tell us what actually happened.

15.243.169.71 (talk) 16:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Replaced with better reference. Beagel (talk) 17:53, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

She or it?

As a ship, Deepwater Horizon should be referred as 'she'. As a rig, 'it' seems to be more correct. What is the correct form to use? Beagel (talk) 08:10, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Deepwater Horizon was self-propelled Mobile Offshore Drilling Unit. She was manned and operated just like a drillship (Captain, officers, crew, etc). She has to meet all the same rules of a merchant ship (MARPOL, ISM, ISPS, Loadline, COLREGs, etc.) The term "rig" is layman for many things including MODU's, stationary production platforms, even FPSO's. Orniphobe (talk) 05:32, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
As I understand it, Deepwater Horizon was not really a ship any most senses of the word. It had propulsion, but it only used that to stay still relative to the seafloor. For actual transportation, it was carried on the back of a heavy lift ship. 74.96.198.225 (talk) 00:39, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but Deepwater Horizon was registered as a ship, had a port of registry and carried flag of the registry country (Marshal Islands). Beagel (talk) 10:48, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
No, she was not carried on a heavy lift ship. She sailed under own power from Korea to the Gulf of Mexico in 2001. She would transit between wells and do storm evasion on her own. Orniphobe (talk) 09:51, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

PLEASE get rid of the SHE nonsense. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia article, not an old sea tale. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.83.98.235 (talk) 17:02, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Seconded, the she stuff is ridiculous.Tjm402 (talk) 17:23, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. Deepwater Horizon was much more of a rig than a ship, we should not let legal technicalities override common sense. Diderot's dreams (talk) 17:36, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I think we're supposed to follow the sources. Has a semi-submersible ever been called "she" outside of Wikipedia? I would be surprised. - Dank (push to talk) 22:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Encyclopedic material should follow standard grammar rules. Referring to a ship with female pronouns is just a tradition. I think "it" would be better. Ahmediq152 (talk) 19:47, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
I vote for "it" no matter whether Deepwater Horizon was a rig, a ship or a cupcake. This is encyclopedia for crying out loud. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.161.241.8 (talk) 14:58, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
No, you're contributing to the argument against this point, which was against what you quoted.Bllasae (talk) 18:52, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

From WikiProject Ships Guidelines "Ships may be referred to either using female pronouns ("she", "her") or genderless pronouns ("it", "its"). Either usage is acceptable, but each article should be internally consistent and employ one or the other exclusively. As with all optional styles, articles should not be changed from one style to another unless there is a substantial reason to do so." I've looked at all the semi-submersible articles and there's a mix. All other types of ships use "she" and "her". I only see two instances of "it" now which I think is insulting to the crew whose lives were saved because of her design and upkeep. I will change them to "the rig" or "the vessel." Orniphobe (talk) 09:51, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

"Use 'she' to refer to countries or ships only when they are female, like Brazil or anything owned by Richard Branson." - Fake AP Stylebook Pjrich (talk) 02:55, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

The traditional, and correct, way to refer to any floating facility, be it ship, barge, seaplane, ketch, or garbage scow (yes, “garbage scow”) is in the feminine. This tradition traces back to ancient times, when female figureheads were put upon all vsls to appease the god Poseidon. It may not be “next generation” but it the proper tradition of the sea, and therefore of mariners. There is no legalese, no “technicalities,” no exceptions. There never has been. Please stop this insulting “It” cr*p.152.121.19.13 (talk) 01:44, 12 June 2010 (UTC)A REDDSON, 12 year sailor.

Gulf of Mexico

Last sentence says "largest oil spill ever in the Gulf of Mexico" - Ixtoc was a larger oil spill in the Gulf. This may be the biggest for the U.S., but not for the Gulf of Mexico. I have seen no current estimates that put it as larger than Ixtoc. Referenced article also does not make this claim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.140.45.200 (talk) 14:10, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

new source: BP diagram "depths and sizes of the different casings installed during the well's construction"

Might be useful: Dept. of Energy published BP doc of 2010-06-08, "Well Configuration (.pdf)- showing the depths and sizes of the different casings installed during the well's construction" at http://www.energy.gov/open/documents/3.1_Item_2_Macondo_Well_07_Jun_1900.pdf

SOURCE: http://www.energy.gov/open/oilspilldata.htm -- Paulscrawl (talk) 21:43, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality And Accuracy Challenged

On April 20, 2010, the rig was in the final phases of drilling an exploratory oil well in which casing was being cemented in place as a reinforcement by Halliburton. The planned well was to be drilled to 18,000 feet (5,500 m) below sea level, and was then to be plugged and suspended for subsequent completion as a subsea producer. At 09:45 p.m. CDT, a geyser of seawater erupted from the marine riser onto the rig, shooting 240 ft (73 m) into the air. This was soon followed by the eruption of a slushy combination of mud, methane gas, and water. This eruption was caused by the fact that the company man (BP rep) ordered the heavy mud that held the pressure down, to be displaced with sea water. The toolpusher (Transoceans rig boss) argued against this, but was over ruled. The well was behind schedule, and BPs plan was to save time on the production end of the completion by using the drilling rig to displace the riser and have the well one more step closer to flowing when the completion team took over from the drilling team. The gas component of the slushy material quickly transitioned into a fully gaseous state and then ignited into a series of explosions and then a firestorm. Workers immediately attempted to activate the blowout preventer, but it failed.

I know that the media has repeatedly reported this, but that makes it neither true not unbiased. This section, to become unbiased, should be re-written as the actual bare proven facts; “On 20 April 2010 the rig was drilling when at 2145 CDT a geyser of seawater erupted from the marine riser onto the rig, shooting 240 ft (73 m) into the air. This was soon followed by the eruption of a slushy combination of mud, methane gas, and water. The gas component of the slushy material quickly transitioned into a fully gaseous state and then ignited into a series of explosions and then a firestorm. Workers immediately attempted to activate the blowout preventer, but it failed.” Even this version of history assumes much not proven factual. (Don’t get me wrong, I know BP’s guilty, but they still have a right to be tried in court, rather than the “court of public opinion,” first.)152.121.19.13 (talk) 01:57, 12 June 2010 (UTC) A REDDSON

There has been direct whitness evidence given during the hearings on this issue. The article could report this info referring to the evidence given at thte hearing for instance in this articlehttp://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oil-spill/index.ssf/2010/05/hearings_chief_mechanic_detail.html. By stating it as whitness acount is a fair represnetation of the infromation available. 86.83.239.142 (talk) 11:58, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
That’s the same thinking that “convicted” Richard JEWEL. Wait until the investigations are completed and sentences handed down before accepting it as “fact.” (Again, I know they’re guilty as Hell, but they haven’t been convicted yet.)174.25.20.170 (talk) 07:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC)A REDDSON
This article about the drilling rig. We have a separate article about the explosion, so details related the explosion should go there not here. Beagel (talk) 12:06, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Ownership

Info on ownership.

Key Players including Jupiter Insurance, Cameron maker of the BOP, Haliburton is in the mix too : [4]Geo8rge (talk) 21:40, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Ownerships you added are ownerships of Macondo Prospect, not the drilling rig. The Deepwater Horizon drilling rig is owned by Transocean only. It is not clear when the insurance company will pay a compensation and take formal ownership of the rig. Beagel (talk) 06:22, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Massive oil spill

This section is very short and probably this article is not the right place to go in more details of the oil spill. Maybe we could merge this subsection with the previous subsection? Beagel (talk) 18:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Was/Is/Defunct

I will restore following discussion from the archive. I think that Quicksilver has a valid point here. Beagel (talk) 13:26, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

The Deepwater Horizon is owned by Transocean, even though it may be a wreck at the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico, at least until such time that the insurance underwriter, if any, pays Transocean for the loss. That's the law. Unless someone can come up with a citation that the payment has already been made, it should be kept in the present tense. I've changed it here and at Deepwater Horizon oil spill a couple of times already, and some editors keep reverting it. —QuicksilverT @ 16:12, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
That is a silly argument. Whoever owns the wreckage is irrelevant. The wreckage is, for all intents and purposes, no longer a drilling rig. It's pile of scrap metal. One might as well talk about dead persons in the present tense because their corpse is still buried somewhere. Let's be sensible: The rig no longer exists (even if the materials which it comprised do). Therefore the past tense is appropriate. 84.177.163.80 (talk) 17:44, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Also they have paid - $401 m on account, balance if any to come - considering cost was $340 m and the total insurance $560 m included replacement + recovery costs one can say it's been mostly settled (or at least the claim accepted). But the past tense relates to whether it is a rig -clearly it's not a functioning rig any more. In the same sense as "that's the house where I was born" or "that was my car" or even on seeing a photograph of a deceased person "that was my husband/wife" - ie, a state of affairs that has ceased to be even though the object still exists. "Was" is correct here. FT2 (Talk | email) 15:45, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Also "defunct" tends to carry a sense of "no longer usable" eg due to being redundant, outdated, past its lifetime, withdrawn from service as no longer economic, etc, rather than the more accurate "destroyed" or "beyond salvage". FT2 (Talk | email) 15:51, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Quicksilver and Beagle.. though it is damaged and sunken, it is still a drilling rig just like a crashed recently airplane that sitting wrecked at the end of a runway still IS an airplane for simplicity by the press. "Defunct" in the Deepwater article introduction will indicate to a reader that the rig still exists but is non-functional. The rig is still the subject of current interests (like insurance claims) and is still referred to in the press as the drilling rig Deepwater Horizon (not, for example, 'pile of scrap metal that used to be a drilling rig called Deepwater Horizon'). Using "defunct" is the best one-word description to denote that the rig was functional but now is non-functional and is the best single word to pull that off. If you agree, consider restoring my 20 June 2010 edits (or copy them as you see fit). I know "WTC was..." and "Titanic was..." but Deepwater Horizon was recently made defunct by the explosion and is still an insured interest. We can speculate that none of it is recoverable but in the mean time we should stick to the facts - it is a (now defunct) drilling rig. mrbill66 / Veritas100 (talk) 13:54, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Deepest in US history?

"Deepwater Horizon sank, leaving the well gushing at the sea floor and causing the largest offshore oil spill in United States history."

Is this true? According to Oil_spill#Largest_oil_spills, the Deepwater Horizon oil spill is the 2nd largest U.S. oil spill after Lakeview Gusher. --70.94.217.104 (talk) 19:50, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Deepwater Horizon/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ironholds (talk) 16:08, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Any chance of more information on the design and construction?
  • "Litigation, ultimate roll call of damage, and the scope of final insurance recovery, are all unknown at present." - not referenced.
  • Link RBS-8D
  • and ultra-deepwater, column-stabilized, et al.
  • "two hundred" versus all the rest, given in digits. I suggest standardising as "200"
  • Link R&B Falcon, if possible
  • "between R&B Falcon to Transocean" - awkward - "between R&B Falcon and Transocean"
  • "and the transfer value as US $340 million" should be referenced.
  • "This was an attempt to buy time while attempts " - attempts, twice
  • "r approximately 36 hours, Deepwater Horizon sank on April 22, 2010, in water approximately" - approximately, twice.
  • "oil spill also can cause" awkward wording. Has it not already caused such things? If so, wrong tense. If not, "is capable of causing". Ironholds (talk) 16:08, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Quick comments:
  1. Unknown but will look up more on design/construction, to see what exists. Update found sources, will add.  Done
  2. Very hard to reference a negative. A statement that certain information that would be of interest and expected to be in an article, is not yet in the article because it's unknown at this time, is reasonable. Leaving it out begs the question or could suggest the stated information is complete, which it isnt. (If not,suggestions?) Unlikely to be a contentious statement, since probably verifiable that blame, liability, payouts, etc are not concluded from ongoing discussion related to these, in the news. Not sure
  3. 200/two hundred - fixed. Done
  4. RBS-8D is a design number, no link. Made clearer in text.  Done
  5. Attributes cited - "column stabilized" still needs a cite  Done
  6. R&B Falcon is now part of Transocean - article slightly refactored to make this clear and cite added. Done
  7. To/and - fixed  Done
  8. $340m cited  Done
  9. attempts x 2 - refactored sentence.  Done
  10. approximately x 2 - refactored sentence  Done
  11. "also can cause" - reworded "has the potential to cause".  Done
    • Need to see whether sources say it already has done so, hence tagged as "cite needed" and also needs checking for an update on the harm done.  Done I think done, please check if it's okay.
  12. One possible extra point to check - text implies rig was leased to BP from 2008/09 ish, but this looks like it was a lease renewal - if so there should be sources saying it was originally BP as well.  Done
  13. And need to recheck if it's technically "deepwater" or "ultra deepwater". There's a technical definition, govt documentation, and their website, so this is easy.  Done
  14. And the $1/2m a day is "bare ship" only, another 1/2m a day for crew, staff, equipment use etc I think? Again to check, tagged for now  Done
FT2 (Talk | email) 17:31, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
  • "Litigation, ultimate roll call of damage, and the scope of final insurance recovery, are all unknown at present." is still unreferenced, as is "Permission had already been requested from MMS to terminate operations at the Macondo site". Ironholds (talk) 16:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
    I appreciate the difficulty of referencing the first statement, but some news org somewhere must have said something along the lines of "litigation continues" or whatever that would allow you to reword the statement. Ironholds (talk) 16:28, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
I think that's done. Care to check?  Done FT2 (Talk | email) 21:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Perfect! Passing now :). Ironholds (talk) 21:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


Fireball

"The resulting fire could not be extinguished..."

Where's Red Adair when you need him?

CybergothiChé (talk) 09:27, 17 July 2010 (UTC) причины повторного взрыва в Мексикамском заливе 2 сентября 2010 года - сжатие ядра Земли и формирование теплового фронта , который явился причиной разогрева газового конденсата . http://live.cnews.ru/forum/index.php?showtopic=65525 от автора Арсеньева Алексея

Red Adair built a mega-rig built specifically to fight this type of fire but it failed to extinguish the Piper Alpha fire so the idea was abandoned and Aldair's rig was converted for use in drilling... that rig, later remained the marianas... was the rig that started the Macando well!--Gcaptain (talk) 01:13, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Cause of Sinking?

Has anyone discovered why the rig sank? This may seem like a silly question, except that its buoyancy was provided by underwater hulls, which were not subject to flame or (presumably) flood. If the water used to fight the fire overwhelmed the buoyancy of the hulls, then one might expect the rig to capsize, spill the water and remain afloat, perhaps upside-down. If this has been studied and reported on, it would be germane to the article. ---User:HopsonRoad 13:51, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Intense heat and structural damage, plus shifting load due to effects of fire, could account for it, depending on the design but that's complete speculation. At the point where a report comes out the matter might be covered. FT2 (Talk | email) 15:47, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
8 workboats where pouring thousands of gallons of water on her. They had two choices... Stop dousing it with water and let the rig heat-up to the point of structural failure and fold in two OR Douse it and watch her slowly sink. They opted for the first choice and she took a slow death spiral. Since that time at least one of the workboat companies have been sued for sinking her. There are a number of articles on that lawsuit in some of the major newspapers. --Gcaptain (talk) 01:10, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for speaking to this matter, Gcaptain. My question was about the physics of its sinking. Why did it either (a) become permanently heavier than the buoyancy of its hulls (added water would spill out or have been neutralized in specific gravity upon submersion) or (b) why would the hulls lose their ability to maintain buoyancy, since they are sub-surface and not affected by heat? The hulls could have been torqued apart by a disintegrating superstructure. This is what I'm interested in learning and seeing reported here. Surely, by now divers or submersibles have surveyed the subsea wreckage and determined the cause of the lack of buoyancy. If there are some newspaper references that discuss the physics of the sinking, perhaps you could post them here. --User:HopsonRoad 14:57, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Time-sequence photographs show the rig capsizing with the heliport-side rising in the water as the opposite side sank. This suggests that the buoyancy of the sinking side was compromised. --User:HopsonRoad 13:40, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Bad math

First paragraph goes: "at a vertical depth of 35,050 ft (10,680 m) and measured depth of 35,055 ft (10,685 m)": a 5 feet difference does not result in a 5 m difference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.218.53.66 (talk) 06:26, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Fixed rounding in the conversion template.Beagel (talk) 06:42, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
It isn't fixed. It still says that a difference of five feet means a difference of five metres. If the template can't be fixed, then it shouldn't be used at all. 209.90.135.140 (talk) 18:02, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
It says: "a vertical depth of 35,050 ft (10,683 m) and a measured depth of 35,055 ft (10,685 m)". So, it is 5 feet or 2 meters. Yes, 5 meters is not precisely 2 meters, but it is correct for rounding. As of showing 5 meters, I suggest to purge your browser cache. Beagel (talk) 18:24, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
No, it still said 10,680 metres. Are you sure you were reading the right part of the article? Because the numbers are found in at least two completely different places (and yes, I did try clearing my cache, manually full-refreshing, etc). Since it was showing correctly later in the article, and incorrectly in the first paragraph, I took a look and noticed that they were invoked differently. Since I didn't feel like editing the template to see why it was different, I simply copied the usage from later in the article into the first paragraph, and now it's showing correctly.
I'm not entirely sure why we're using a template at all though. I mean, it's not like the conversion is subject to constant change, so why isn't it just directly written? 209.90.135.140 (talk) 04:04, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, you are correct. I fixed rounding in the drilling section and did not look at the lead. I hope this is finally fixed now. Beagel (talk) 15:16, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

For starters, where is this 'depth' measured from? Mean Sea Level or from the seabed? This makes a big difference on the depth of this 'deepest well drilled' given that the Gulf of Mexico is a few km deep in places. My inital guess would be MSL.92.28.134.181 (talk) 00:12, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

In popular culture

I'm tempted to add a pointer to the song (track 9) somewhere ... :-) --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:39, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.offshore-technology.com/features/feature84446/
    Triggered by \boffshore-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist
  • http://www.offshore-technology.com/projects/macondoprospect/
    Triggered by \boffshore-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 11:20, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 21:21, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Deepwater Horizon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:28, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Source to consider

I am no longer watching this page—ping if you'd like a response czar 07:22, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Deepwater_Horizon/Archive_1&oldid=1084066415"