Talk:Deepwater Horizon oil spill/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Transocean helping with the cleanup?

Are Transocean helping up with the clean up at all? i know that BP have taken full responsability for the clean up, which I think they have to as it is their concession and their oil, but it seems odd that there has been nothing public from them as from what I was reading, they owned and operated the rig? Discojim (talk) 04:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

odd? hmmm... perhaps this reliable source will shed some light, as well as a plethora of other RSs: CBS "60 minutes" investigation of Deepwater Horizon blowout, aired May 16, 2010 MichaelWestbrook (talk) 04:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I should have just googled it. found the info. Transocean are leasing ships to BP for the clean up operation... http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2010/0615/What-BP-s-partners-are-doing-in-Gulf-oil-spill-cleanup also in the news http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/business/No_cheap_way_out_for_Transocean.html?cid=9100278 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Discojim (talk • contribs) 00:53, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: Units - Archive 5

"Could we replace liters with cubic meters? Beagel (talk) 18:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)"

What was the reason for modifying the units to cubic meters? Cubic meters are not a commonly used measurement by general public. An overwhelming majority of the world measures in liters, with the US gallon next by number of users. I understand natural gas is commonly measured this way in the industry, however using a more obscure unit makes it less human readable, defeating the purpose of wikipedia. As a research scientist myself, the liter unit is dominant for liquid volume measure. 74.94.247.150 (talk) 15:44, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Cubic meters are what the oil industry overwhelmingly uses when talking about volume in metric units. Liters are just too small, it looks almost comical to have such a large quantity measured in liters, like measuring the amount of water in a swimming pool in teaspoons. Yes teaspoons are common and people are very familiar with them, but they are inappropriate for numbers of that scale. That is why I think Liters should be changed. I was under the impression that the reason it hasn't been changed already is that there's some kind of problem with the conversion template. TastyCakes (talk) 15:53, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

We have a quite large figures here. For most of human beings there is no difference if you have 1 million, 10 million, or 100 million liters - these figures just too large for imagination. Beagel (talk) 16:15, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Charity

I found some interesting info about this cell phone company that is doing charity contributions for the oil spills. I'm going to edit the Charity section of the article to include this new info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ezanawit (talk • contribs) 21:12, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi there. I have deleted your entry because I feel it is too narrow for this broad article. However, you may want to try and do something with this article: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37682417 Perhaps Mad Mobile could be included with other charities that are trying to help. I see you are new at editing, so perhaps you may want to discuss your entry here before posting it. Good luck! Gandydancer (talk) 22:22, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

New flow estimate

Now up to 60,000 bbl/day... Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 22:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Unit conversion done here by the Washington Post Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 22:08, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Discussions about the article's tone

Arguments supporting an unbalanced and overly negative tone

I think this article is much too negative and a smear campaign against BP. As a company, BP has a fine record, and is much safer than many others. Oil spills happen, it is inevitable. This fear mongering does nothing, and seems designed to fit the lib and MSM agenda of preventing american energey indepenance by making it illegul to drill in Alaska, where there is OIL. If you dont like it, fine, but no need to sensationalize some relatively minor event as if it were a gigantic asteroid about to kill 100 million people.

This article is a sad and cynical exercise in yellow journalism.

To improve it, there needs to be more info about the process of oil extraction, the frequency of oil spills, BPs technological advances and fine safety record, and the need of oil to make the american economy run without giving money to terrorists. There needs to be an effort to establish the CONTEXT of this, so that it is not turned into some political dem/lib point scoring stuff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.38.89.212 (talk) 10:28, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

If you hadn't already been temporarily blocked for "disruptive harassment and racist editing" I'd invite your no-doubt well-balanced contributions. Paulscrawl (talk) 14:28, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately I agree with him though. It is a bit too anti-BP. People seem to be forgetting that this whole thing might not have been BP's fault and whatever the case it was a freak accident. --Half Price (talk) 14:51, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Paul - so, you have nothing against the substance of my argument, you just want to name call? FYI, I was blocked by one of the zionists's for making an edit to the judaism page, which is not surprising. This whole thing about the spill is pretty ridiculous. BP is being made into a scapegoat, and Wikipedia is part of the lynch mob. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.38.89.212 (talk) 15:06, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Is there a constructive suggestion about how to improve the article? USchick (talk) 15:42, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

The substance of the suggestion, I think, was to add more context about BP and drilling in general. However, this article is about the current disaster, which is unfortunately a very negative topic. The context is available in the related articles BP and offshore drilling. Thundermaker (talk) 16:51, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

This edit was apparently meant to add balance to the article. Drmies (talk) 09:47, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Arguments supporting an unbalanced and overly positive tone

I think the article is far too positive, in the general attitude about the situation. There are tar balls, oil globs, and oil sheen washing ashore on the tourist beaches of 4 U.S. states, and entering into the inner wildlife areas, carried inward by incoming tides, which every oil company knows will flow inland daily. Water-level tide tables are published for these areas, every day: the rising tide comes from Gulf waters moving into the inner waterways. It is even possible to calculate the millions of gallons of water predicted to enter each day, and determine what percent of that water will contain tar balls, oil globs, and surface sheen. For weeks, experts have said that 18-inch floating booms would be ineffective, and recommended 48-inch booms (1.2 m), for deepwater areas, be placed near tourist beaches and inner waterways, but it didn't happen. Those larger floating booms were not available in time, and masses of oil came ashore, pushing oil 3 miles (5 km) into protected areas. At this point, every beach community, of the eastern Gulf, needs to prepare its own barriers against the oil, and there are plans to bill BP, by charges against a multi-$billion escrow account, for the work actually needed to keep the oil from coming inland. Search the webpages and find many reports of tourists leaving beaches due to the tar on the beach or the smell of oil in the air. Over 100 birds per day are being rescued for shock and cleanup. Hundreds of birds have already died. Fishermen are wondering if the spawning grounds for Bluefin tuna and Gulf shrimp have been contaminated, to reduce or poison next year's catch. -Wikid77 (talk) 14:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Arguments supporting a balanced tone

I think the article is well-balanced :D MichaelWestbrook (talk) 17:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Please elaborate. 98.113.232.41 (talk) 01:03, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

BP public relations

I heard on NPR, that BP is legally required to control which information is released, because it effects stock prices. Also, the section here starts "initially BP downplayed it, but really the spill kinda grew. 67.176.160.47 (talk) 05:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

What is the estimated volume of the oil reserves that might escape

BP and the President are talking about getting through this while never mentioning what the total potential volume of escaping oil might eventually be. What is the worst case? There does not seem to be some line in the sand number of oil volume that if exceeded the USA will take BP off the case and put some other team in charge, that would be a logical algorithm to approach this issue. 71.127.28.55 (talk) 17:21, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

It's an interesting question, but I don't think there are any published data on how much oil might ultimately escape. The "worst case scenario" is for the pressure of the oil and gas in the reservoir to drop so low that it can no longer push it to the surface. In a regular oil well, that's known as primary recovery and is typically only a few percent of the total volume in the field. Since we don't know the total volume of the field, how much oil there is relative to gas or even the reservoir pressure, getting a meaningful number is unlikely (BP estimated initial volume as as 50 million barrels, so you could ballpark it based on that as I did here, but that is an extremely rough estimate that I'm not very confident in any more). The people that could probably best estimate that would be BP, and while I'm no public relations estimate, I'm pretty sure they're not going to be publishing those numbers any time soon. TastyCakes (talk) 17:43, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Actualy, the worst case is the levels of oil released into the Gulf of Mexico become so great that it becomes a Magor desilate zone with no ability to support marine life. Presently BP has made offers and had local fisherman hired on to help with the cleanups but there also rejecting any workers that have media ties. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WatchingDragon (talk • contribs) 18:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

U.S. government prevents other parties from helping in cleanup

I propose that we create a new section called "U.S. government prevents other parties from helping in cleanup" and include the following:

Although the Netherlands uses skimmers to clean up oil spills, such devices are banned by U.S environmental regulations, because the skimmers allow a tiny trace amount of the oil to remain in the water.

The governments of Canada, Croatia, France, Germany, Ireland, Mexico, the Netherlands, Norway, Romania, Republic of Korea, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom, and the United Nations all offered to help clean up the oil, but the U.S. government turned down all of their offers of help because it would have violated the Jones Act.

Actor Kevin Costner demonstrated his own technology that could be used to clean up the oil, but the U.S. government would not allow that either, because the technology could only clean up 99.9% of the oil instead of 100%.

Back on the Chain Gang (talk) 18:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Should i have Semi protected the page?

(DJO CODY (talk) 20:12, 16 June 2010 (UTC)) i protected the page. TO Avoide potientiol MEdiea attention stuff. like argueing. IF i have made a mistake please fix it and notify me on my talk page under the section titiled my MISTAKES. thank you(DJO CODY (talk) 20:12, 16 June 2010 (UTC))

You actually can't protect the page since you're not an administrator. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 20:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Christmas tree (oil well)

Is it true that BP is having a problem fixing the spill because the christmas tree was misaligned? If so, that should be mentioned in the article. Kittybrewster ☎ 22:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

End of the world

this article is now 10x longer than oil industry and 6x longer than that to which 'end of the world' redirects. just sayin'.Toyokuni3 (talk) 18:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Really? And I'm sure this article is shorter than a number of celebrity biographies. Geogene (talk) 23:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Efforts to stem the flow and cleanup efforts should be spit

These two sections are byfar the largest sections and need to be split into a new artical. (talk) 17:46, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Health Consequences

The "health consequences" section of the article contains original research, specifically WP:SYNTHESIS

As of May 29, ten oil spill clean-up workers had been admitted to West Jefferson Medical Center in Marrero, Louisiana. All :but two had been hospitalized suffering from chest pains, dizziness, headaches and nausea.

That may be a fact, but all of these symptoms could have been caused by heat exposure, as temperatures are now in the low 90s in the area, or anything else for that matter.

The following attempts to link the above to VOC and PAH exposure:

Crude oil contains a mixture of volatile hydrocarbon compounds, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons that typically include benzene, :toluene, and xylene, which are known for their carcinogenic effects. Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH) have caused tumors in :laboratory animals when they breathed these substances. Symptoms of exposure to these petroleum compounds include dizziness, :headaches, nausea, and rapid heart beat. Kerosene (a component of the dispersants being used in the Gulf) exposure causes similar :symptoms.

This is original research.

The journal reference that is supposed to link PAHs and VOCs to cancer and "headaches, nausea, and rapid heart beat" is a reference to occupational exposure of automotive mechanics. There is no relation to the spill or the the hospitalizations mentioned above. Geogene (talk) 22:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The article also failed to mention that the source cited said that the emergency room doctors at West Jefferson thought that the hospitalizations were caused by dehydration rather than chemical exposure. Somehow that got left out of this very tendentious article. Geogene (talk) 22:42, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Global industry and economic impact of the Deepwater Horizon disaster

There is a new spin-off article Global industry and economic impact of the Deepwater Horizon disaster. Beagel (talk) 23:14, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

This Article should be renamed 'BP Oil Spill'

This article should clearly be labelled the BP Oil Spill, not the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. I don't know why, with 37 million google results, the phrase 'BP Oil Spill' is not the real title. 'Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill', by the way, has only 7.9 million results. This smells like BP's editing to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.92.189.166 (talk) 22:28, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Please see move proposals above. You might want to make your case here. TastyCakes (talk) 22:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

There's no reason to waste time renaming it just to push a political agenda. You can already get to it by entering BP oil spill, which actually has two different entries, so that's another reason not to mess with it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:12, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

In fact BP oil spill now redirects directly to the 2010 incident, so that's another reason to leave things alone. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I find your comment "There's no reason to waste time renaming it just to push a political agenda." insulting to Wikipedia's editors in general (those that "waste time" in your opinion, while they devote valuable time contributing constructive discussion with only the intent to improve this article) and grossly sophomoric to assume these editors, whether a minority or majority, are pushing a political agenda. Please refrain from such baseless generalizations of Wikipedia's editors. Please assume good faith. Thankyou. MichaelWestbrook (talk) 09:43, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Forgive me, as I try to be polite, but frankly I lose patience with pointless debates. There is nothing to be gained, no benefit, from renaming the article. If you look around wikipedia, you'll see that far too much time gets wasted on debating the names of things, especially given that redirects make the particular names of articles unimportant. Every second spent debating such an issue is a second taken away from doing something more constructive. And the only obvious reason for renaming the article is to take a factual, neutral label and try to make the article title more overtly put the blame on BP. Don't lecture me about good faith. I can read English. Thankyou kindly. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:50, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

If everyone applied your reasoning to the way they contribute to Wikipedia, this whole place would simply be a pile of dribble and conjecture frought with endless theorem about everyone's agenda. Jcarle (talk) 14:53, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

These numbers are meaningless. And a simple reason BP Oil Spill has more results is because it includes any page with "oil spill" that has "BP" on it. Deepwater Horizon is specific to only this one and this rig. Even oil Spill (44 mil.) shows this as top result now. - Skullers (talk) 03:39, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

There is nowhere in the press or government where this disaster is referred to as anything but the BP Oil Spill. The only argument to naming it otherwise is coming from BP or its public relations surrogates. BP's public relations apparatus has already been exposed with documents about how to combat naming this disaster with anything but BP in its name, so the cat's out of the bag. 98.248.180.183 (talk) 05:51, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Baseball Bugs that renaming debates often generate more heat than light. But, consider that the name of the presidential commission appointed to study this, the National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling, sort of suggests that an official name for this event and article might be "BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill". I think that name would satisfy a lot of the complaining going on, while only being a modest change from the present name. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:30, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I concur with "BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill" and your common sense reasoning. Please make your case above in the requested move section. MichaelWestbrook (talk) 12:01, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Makes sense to me as well. Gandydancer (talk) 16:06, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Timeline article

There are currently two articles dealing with the oil spill: Deepwater Horizon oil spill and Timeline of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. I see clear need for the timeline article as supplementary to this article. By my understanding, the timeline article should chronologically list all activities and events releted to the oil spill without going in details which belong in this article. However, I have a feeling that the original focus has lost and there are lot of materials repeating this article. This contains also a potential WP:POVFORK issue (although this is not a case right now). I think that it would be useful if the major contributors to this article will take a care also of the timeline article. Beagel (talk) 22:21, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The Timeline article is greatly needed: the hard work of Americasroof in steadily maintaining that "just the facts, ma'am" resource of summary style headlines with formatted references ready to be copy and pasted here will be greatly appreciated when the time finally comes to chop this article down to summary style after passions cool or hell freezes over, whichever comes first. Thus, there will be plenty of overlap with materials that belong in this article. That, to my way of thinking, is the the entire idea: checks and balances. Check it daily, and use the resource to help rebalance this article. Paulscrawl (talk) 19:01, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

This is a important artice as Americasroof has taken more than a fare share of time to continue to monitor and report the facts as they've been happening. He seems to want to keep things strictly to the facts of what is being reports by the accepted creditable sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WatchingDragon (talk • contribs) 19:21, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Eyewitness BP Oil Spill

I thought this was interesting, a photo from the Guardian newspaper, taken by Dave Martin from Orange Beach, Alabama, more than 90 miles away from ground zero.Awegbaweafwefa (talk) 23:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I'd really suport this photograph being in the main article. But I am not a v. experienced editor, I have created mainly one article (Weldon Angelos Case) so far. But I hope an editor with some experience and persistence will get this photo up. My belief is that the damage is going to be more-or-less permanent, but it is hard to quanitfy/convey that if people only say such-and-such species may not recover. A photo is more intuitively understandable. So, editors take note: someone please put this photo in the main article, I support the idea of doing that. Createangelos (talk) 16:07, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

The image is copyrighted and easily replaced. SpigotMap 16:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Death on the High Seas Act

Created Death on the High Seas Act stub, see Screwed if by Sea: A 90-year-old maritime law gets BP off the hook for workers killed on the Deepwater rig. Slate. • Ling.Nut 04:32, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Is this the Jones Act? Kittybrewster ☎ 13:08, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Top kill failure caused by disk

Need to mention that oil well casing may be cracked and was reason for top kill failure. --Ericg33 (talk) 08:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC) http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704875604575280133577164268.html?ru=yahoo&mod=yahoo_hs

Renaming article to BP oil spill of 2010

What is delaying the renaming of the article?--67.219.254.84 (talk) 19:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

See talk above. TastyCakes (talk) 19:54, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Nuclear option

Is there an article covering the nuclear option? If no, could someone create one? (and reference the wells the Soviets killed also) 70.29.212.131 (talk) 05:30, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

See Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Jcarle (talk) 14:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Its a good question, as the Soviets used the method several times to close wells. We should have an article on that specifically. Maybe Soviet nuclear well collapses (just stubbed). In theory, a relief well could be used to lower a nuclear device deep underground. If the relief well is for example 200 meters away, the blast would have to be of about sufficent power (kiloton-low megaton range) to collapse the well, and would have be at a sufficient depth to contain that blast. As I understand it, the relief wells aren't close enough for a shallow, low-yield blast (I don't understand why they can't just drill close and shallow bypass relief wells). The device would have to be close enough to the well to have an impact, and deep enough so that the blast is contained entirely underground. Added to that the blast would have to be contained entirely in the rock strata, so as to not disturb the well source, as that might make things worse. So its non-trivial.

Jcarle, that's not an actual response to the question, and that is not an article on the actual topic the anon is asking. The anon asked about an engineering concept, to which you are replying with a political concept - completely unrelated, and completely beside the point. The engineering concept does not involve nuclear weapons, and thus the NPT does not apply. It uses nuclear devices, which are conceptually quite different from nuclear weapons. Environmentalists might even like the idea, considering what the spill is still doing. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 15:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree, I think it's a fascinating (if terrifying) concept that could definitely warrant its own article. Has anyone seen any sources on the Soviet use (assuming they actually did use it)? Or any good sources of information on the subject in general? TastyCakes (talk) 16:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

New York Times got it right in referenced article of 2 June, which has very good summary of Milo. D. Nordyke's report re: Soviets' use of nuclear explosions in successfully extinguishing runaway gas well fires in their Nuclear Explosions for the National Economy program. (Don't laugh: Americans called their counterpart Operation Plowshare.) Relevant technical report is referenced in New York Times and that first WP article, where it belongs, with some other sources, together with wikilink back to this article. I tracked down source and added URL and some meta data for findability to latter reference: read it yourself, but it has no place in this article, and certainly not a standalone article -- as mentioned, already in most relevant article. We are talking about only 6 experiments done decades ago: I've also made reference to this article and that study in appropriate section of peaceful nuclear explosions article. Paulscrawl (talk) 18:58, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

In response to the top User's (this section) request for a Nuclear option addition, I've added the U.K.'s telegraph article information that the Obama Administration did indeed assemble a team and sent them to Houston to consider what was apparently a nuclear solution. SilenceDoogood (talk) 13:46, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

No assumptions can be made as to what options that team of nuclear physicists were considering: cited source mentions no consideration of nuclear solution. Nuclear physicists are often called in as trouble-shooting analysts outside their field of expertise because of their demonstrated capacity for conceptual abstraction at a very high level. Steven Chu, DOE head, a Nobel Prize winning nuclear physicist himself, could just as well be thought to have personally selected the team because he knows them best and trusts members of his tribe to analyze all the options precisely the way he would. Present summary in article is judiciously neutral. Paulscrawl (talk) 18:53, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Macondo Prospect technical facts

i have been trying to research some elemental facts about the oil spill and am not finding them

• at what depth below the wellhead was the oil first found ?

i have found diffrent data from 2500m to 5600m below the oceanfloor for a total of between 150 to 350m of oilbearing strata

[1]

• at what preassure levels ?

again diffrent data from 1500 bar to 5600 bar

• what is the geological strata of the oceanfloor below the wellhead. ?

i have found salt dome of 1500m to 2500m

• at what maximum depth was oil found ?

no information available

as i belive that these are important facts which will govern the oilspill they should be available here

if have found some indications that the oil is extremly unusal as it contains about 40% methane in opposit to normal oil which contains 5%. it would have signifikant implication to enviromental damage

[2]

this should be verified before inklusion

89.204.137.233 (talk) 13:58, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

That sounds very useful providing it is sourced as you say. Kittybrewster ☎ 14:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

One more source is here. It is also reason why BP said that the collected oil is hard to sell. Unfortunately I can't find the source where this was said. Beagel (talk) 11:43, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

cause: North Korean Incendiary Torpedo????

I do not live in the EU, so I have no social framework to back this up, but I believe that the "verified source" that talks about the "North Korean Incendiary Torpedo" reason for the oil rig exploding may be slightly less than reliable; they appear, after a brief appraisal, to be a sensationalist newspaper more concerned with getting people to read stores than they are with fact checking; what we in the US refer to as a "tabloid". until a more reputable source can be found to substantiate this claim, I recommend that it be removed.

Also, I thought this page was semi-protected. When did that change?

Farfromunique (talk) 09:13, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

The anom editor continuously inserting this conspiracy theory is back. Yes, it was discussed and found that the EU Times is not RS. Beagel (talk) 09:24, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Regulatory Aspects of the Explosion and Oil Discharge

Which agencies had relevant oversight of the activities and equipment involved? What requirements were not being adhered to at and before the time of the initiating event? What would have been better had the requirements been adhered to? What inspections and assessments were made by agencies before the time of the initiating event? What agency permissions and exemptions had been granted? What were the accountabilities and duties of the following? MMS EPA OSHA What agencies had conducted investigations of related incidents? What related incidents had been investigated by NTSB? CSB? EPA? OSHA? MMS?

Firebird (talk) 17:31, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Kevin Costner's Technology

Is this section really worth being its own section? Shouldn't this be lumped under containment and cleanup? It seems to me that machines purchased from this one company would be as meritorious of having its own section as the company that produces booms for BP.

In addition, if this is worth its own section, why is it called "Kevin Costner's Technology?" The company developed the technology, not the actor. Should we call the article "Tony Hayward's Oil Spill"?

--asdfsdf, 70.15.7.72 (talk) 04:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

173.52.161.114 (talk) 22:39, 19 June 2010 (UTC)"Try this" - Another option http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DzSvv58oW84 [User - ABDAC 18:36 EST June 19, 2010]

Support -- altogether disproportionate emphasis. One good source can consolidate various public suggestions. Paulscrawl (talk) 06:35, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support Kevin Costner made some god awful films. ok, j/k. I support because then we should include hundreds of other solutions as well. Let's keep this article concise, please? MichaelWestbrook (talk) 07:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support Strong support - way too much emphasis. Gandydancer (talk) 15:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

There has been no support for keeping, it so I removed it. Perhaps if someone feels strongly about it they can try it somewhere else... Gandydancer (talk) 17:47, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I restored the section with new title [3], so as other companies also suggested their own decisions for cleanup the Gulf. Feel free to add there any new information about other ways and companies that really are able to save the Gulf. Krasss (talk) 19:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I reverted again, per discussion here, as well as unreliable source used. Please check sources. In the article you referenced, nowhere does it say that Kevin Costner's technology, or the company's technology proposed by Kevin Costner, is "expected to be implemented". Also keep in mind the hundreds of solutions claiming effectiveness, hence the other two sources simply touting their two solutions are also not viable under "Containment and cleanup" section. Article conciseness should be considered. MichaelWestbrook (talk) 20:31, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Sources are checked, section is restored.[4] Krasss (talk) 00:13, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I checked your sources again. Nowhere does it say Kevin Costner's technology will be implemented. The other sources also tout solutions, and even though BP, as these companies report, may have said they will review their solution, nowhere do your sources reference their implementation. There are hundreds of solutions claiming effectiveness. We must remain as concise as possible when the article reaches this size. I will revert per this discussion, RS, conciseness, and common sense. MichaelWestbrook (talk) 00:35, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

"BP spokesman Bill Salvin confirmed the company has contracted with Costner and Ocean Therapy Solutions to use the machines." (The Guardian). "We are very pleased with the results and today we have placed a significant order with OTS (Costner's Ocean Therapy Solutions) and will be working with them to rapidly manufacture and deploy 32 of their machines." (ABCnews) --- What is not a reliable source? ABC News or The Guardian? If you were doubtful about their "implementation", you would be able to find in the Web more reliable sources that you want, by yourself , - or add there the "citation is needed" template - or even remove the "implementation" word without removing all the section. Yes, there are hundreds of solutions claiming effectiveness, but only some of them are publically discussing now on TV. Anyway, the section "Suggested technologies to cleanup" MUST be here - so as all the real ways to cleanup the Gulf are now more important than something else in the article. I restored the section with new links. Krasss (talk) 21:04, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Note I've removed the "other companies" text. At this point, it seems only to be a list of "possible" solutions proposed by the companies themselves, which is not notable. (I can't speak to the Kostner stuff as I haven't investigated that aspect.) With respect to the other firms, we'd only list that stuff if it became notable through third-party interest; we cannot simply list information that Wikipedians feel might be beneficial. --Ckatz^chat_spy 23:39, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Why not? It is claimed, that EVTN's largest model, the "Voraxial 8000 Separator" can separate over 5 million gallons of oil/water mixture per day (i.e. it is much more faster than Costner's separators). Why this information is not notable? This technology is now being reviewed by BP to use in the Mexican Gulf, - and it was cited by USA Today - very notable "third-party" source. Krasss (talk) 16:34, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Krasss, your latest edit revision was excellent, and I support it. I quote: "BP has ordered 32 machines from Ocean Therapy Solutions following owner Kevin Costner's testimony before the United States Congress. The machines separate oil and water, and each machine can extract up to 2,000 barrels of oil per day from the Gulf. BP spokesman Bill Salvin confirmed the company has contracted with Costner and Ocean Therapy Solutions to use the machines. BP agreed to use the technology after testing machines during the past week. "We are very pleased with the results and today we have placed a significant order with OTS (Costner's Ocean Therapy Solutions) and will be working with them to rapidly manufacture and deploy 32 of their machines," said Doug Suttles, BP's chief operating officer."

As much as I hated Waterworld, I appreciate Kevin Costner's passion and dedication regarding this crisis. But seriously, all I ask is for reliable sources. And you provided not only RS in the above paragraph, but conciseness as well. Kudos, my friend. :D MichaelWestbrook (talk) 17:49, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

MichaelWestbrook, thank you, but the revision that you cited above [5] was made by User:Ckatz, better say thanks to him. Ckatz, and I am still waiting for your responce to my last comment. Krasss (talk) 19:56, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

The EU Times is reliable source!

I quote "European Union Times is an international newspaper based in Europe with operational branches in America and Canada. Our online edition of The European Union Times (also known as The EU Times) is constantly updated to bring you the top news stories from around the world. It is produced by a dedicated staff from the European Union and by contributors from all around the world. EUTimes.net/International features the latest multimedia technologies, from live video streaming to audio packages to searchable archives of news features and background information. The site is updated continuously throughout the day."

Im sorry, but if that isnt a reliable source, than nothing is.

The New York Times and MSM aint the only fish in the sea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.36.226.22 (talk) 10:11, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Please discuss on talk page and achieve consensus before providing any North Korean torpedo cause theory as fact. Please do not turn this into a revert edit war. Thankyou kindly. MichaelWestbrook (talk) 10:30, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Notice: this user was blocked on 16 June for 1 week, so we see right now the block evasion. Also, he has already broke the WP:3RR. Beagel (talk) 10:59, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Previous discussions:

1. Talk:Deepwater Horizon oil spill/Archive 1#North Korea torpedoed the oil_rig ?
2. Talk:Deepwater Horizon oil spill/Archive 1#Blowout_ r Suspicious?
3. Talk:Deepwater Horizon oil spill/Archive 4#North Korea explanation
4. Talk:Deepwater Horizon oil spill/Archive 5#Media blackout

Beagel (talk) 11:13, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

To my mind EUTimes.net should be banned and blacklisted. Kittybrewster ☎ 10:34, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed! The EU Times is a complete joke. I wonder how anybody can take them seriously. Half Price (talk) 10:48, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I have asked that it be added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist Kittybrewster ☎ 11:03, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 173.168.12.108, 19 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} The first sentence of the third paragraph of the opening of the article needs serious rework. No one fears that this is an "environmental disaster." They know it is. What they fear (and I suspect also know) is that it is the largest man made environmental disaster in human history.

173.168.12.108 (talk) 18:09, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello, you can edit this article now. I've declined your request, because you can now fix exactly what you want to. Cheers, {{Sonia|ping|enlist}} 09:51, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Risk of catastrophic methane explosion in Gulf of Mexico?!

Please provide your input on this ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by User298576392 (talk • contribs) 18:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Short Term Efforts to Stem Flow of Oil

Understand the pipe has been cut above the BOP and the LMRP has been installed in attempt to capture some of the leaking oil. As a Petroleum Engineer myself, but not working in the industry, I have come up with ideas to contain and capture the leaking oil, but need more information about the piping/equipment configuration and leak points on the seafloor. Any advice on how to get better detail information on what the current configuration and status is? Ericgrinde (talk) 05:50, 20 June 2010 (UTC) EricRG, 6/19/2010.

(Read: there is a BP call center. They are listening to public suggestions. WhitneyMaslow (talk) 13:05, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

BP Reaction Bias?

The first paragraph of BP Reaction subsection seems to be a selection of quotes that BP has since apologized for, highlighting poorly phrased responses and NOT covering what their overarching response actually was. Does anyone else agree that this should be changed? 24.218.206.120 (talk) 15:02, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Support --- Dan Qualye.

Seriously, the article's truly minuscule sampling of Tony Hayward's inimitable way with words is totally appropriate within a section devoted to BP public relations. The quotes themselves were very widely reported in all media and decried in all levels of government, from citizens, to Congress, to the US Presidency, thus easily meeting WP's significant coverage guideline for notability. I grant, however, that it might be overkill to also include any of the following, from his Congressional testimony last Tuesday:

• "I'd like to understand the context ... as I understand it."
• "I clearly am the ultimate power..."
• "I had no prior knowledge."
• "We have begun to change the culture."
• "It is a thing that I talk about every time I talk internally or externally."
• "The long-term integrity of the well will be best served by a long string."

Shop for more at the Wayward Hayward T-shirt Shoppe. Today only: TWO foot-in-the mouth T's for the price of ONE!

Paulscrawl (talk) 18:20, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

External Link

Would this be an appropriate external link to add regarding BP and the broader history of allowing industries to regulate themselves? http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/75650/bp —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fishman0 (talk • contribs) 18:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

It appears that your only edits involve adding links to the New Republic site. --Ckatz^chat_spy 21:18, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

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

No consensus on a new name. I think there is consensus that the current name is wrong. In reading the discussion over the last two days, it seems that there are significant objections to including BP in the title since they were not the owners or operators of the rig. Likewise, there are objections to including any company name since the responsibility for the accident has not been determined and will not likely be in the near future. Additionally, using Deepwater Horizon in the name is problematic since the rig is not the source of the leak, but rather the well that it drilled is the source. So in the end the article needs moving but to where? Unless a better name is decided, this is going to be a continuing problem with more rename requests until some kind of consensus is established. In reading the discussion, I have to wonder if the best compromise is something like Gulf of Mexico oil spill or some version of that? Vegaswikian (talk) 21:07, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Deepwater Horizon oil spill → BP Gulf of Mexico oil spill — The current name, Deepwater Horizon oil spill, implies that Deepwater Horizon spilled itself out into the Gulf of Mexico. This is in no way correct. The Deepwater Horizon drilling rig explosion was in fact the initial cause of the ongoing spill, but again, it did not itself spill oil. Deepwater Horizon being a an ultra-deepwater, dynamically positioned, semi-submersible offshore drilling rig, is also considered a Drillship. Therefore, it is a vessel. This vessel, unlike a tanker, does not hold any oil therefore does not have any oil to spill. (I appologize for the overly kindergarden explanation of the facts, but people seem to continuously miss the point.) This distinction is important because it makes the current name factually and technically incorrect. Previous discussions about the renaming this page to Gulf of Mexico oil spill were rejected on the grounds that it did not make the name sufficiently accurate or unique based on the fact that this was not the only oil spill to ever occur in the Gulf of Mexico (refering to the 1979 Ixtoc I oil spill). This being the case, I believe that adding the reponsible party to the name (which is very well known publicly) makes the new proposed name BP Gulf of Mexico oil spill both factually and technically correct as well as sufficiently unique. Jcarle (talk) 05:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Oppose; the well created by Deepwater Horizon did create the spill, and while BP is certainly a responsible party, there is not enough evidence so to say to say that they were the only responsible party, as a rename would indicate. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 05:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support, but... amend with descriptive additional name "Deepwater Horizon", rather than "Gulf of Mexico"... my final suggestion, already suggested by others in archives of this talk page, is "BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill"... MichaelWestbrook (talk) 06:01, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

(see archive 4 of this talk page for my complete argument supporting this requested move and reasoning for specifically describing the oil spill with the proper adjective "BP Deepwater Horizon" weeks ago): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Deepwater_Horizon_oil_spill/Archive_4#Request_to_rename_article_to_BP_oil_spill_of_2010 MichaelWestbrook (talk) 06:12, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support Per WP:COMMONNAME. Most people recognize it as the "BP Oil Spill". --WikiDonn (talk) 07:19, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
• Strong oppose again. Kittybrewster ☎ 09:51, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

• Neutral about the original proposal so far. There is no single common name and several names, including Deepwater Horizon oil spill, are in use as common names. However, if renamed, I definitely prefer BP Gulf of Mexico oil spill over BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Although quite a number of search results could be found for BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill by Google search, Google News gives only 464 results for the phrase "BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill" which is not significant compared to some other options. Also, "BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill" is misleading as it suggests that Deepwater Horizon was owned by BP. This is incorrect. Beagel (talk) 07:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

"Also, "BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill" is misleading as it suggests that Deepwater Horizon was owned by BP. This is incorrect." ~ Beagel

Beagel, Paulscrawl logically refuted your argument of "misleading by suggestive description" premise over a week ago, yet you had nothing to say in return then, and still have nothing really to say now, I see. You are merely repeating yourself. We heard you then. Now please, tell us why attaching "BP" to "Deepwater Horizon" as a proper adjective preceding "oil spill" is precisely misleading? Keep in mind, and be careful, my friend: Attaching "Deepwater Horizon" ALONE, (under your semantic precision agenda) it may seem to some (including myself) to this oil spill, is probably just as well misleading, is it not? If Transocean owned Deepwater Horizon, as your logic "leads" a reader to follow, then am I being facetious, so to speak, by feeling that you accept (conveniently neutral) its rig as the most responsible factor in the entire equation? So then, would it be so grossly exaggerated that I associate Transocean as more the cause of this oil spill than any other entity when I see this article in big bold letters? I welcome your thoughts. Take your time, as I have taken mine for almost two months now, to form your rebuttal. This is not a game. I am taking this very seriously. Information is key here. Let's split hairs when necessary.--MichaelWestbrook (talk) 08:29, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I apology for the off-topic comment but I think it would be better to comment the topic, not other editors. I find the comment addressed directly to me some way patronizing and not encouraging to express views about the topic. I believe that this was not intentional.

Additional comment about the renaming: I don't think that the title of this article should make anybody more or less responsible than he/she is. Wikipedia is not about "naming and blaming" and NPOV should be kept. So far, I also do not oppose moving the article to BP Gulf of Mexico oil spill as the original proposal of this discussion. However, I strongly oppose the name "BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill" because:

1. Deepwater Horizon drilling rig is owned by Transocean, not by BP
2. phrase "BP Deepwater Horizon" suggests that Deepwater Horizon is owned by BP. However, it is possible to use both "BP" and "Deepwater Horizon" in the title if "Deepwater Horizon" is not directly placed after "BP".
3. Both, "BP Gulf of Mexico oil spill" and "Deepwater Horizon oil spill" are more commonly used than "BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill"

Beagel (talk) 10:26, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Understood. I need a break from here. My emotions concerning this tragedy are getting the better of me. I really don't care what the title is. We all know the truth. It is just sad. But I gas up my car just like the next fellow. So this article might as well be called "Michael Westbrook's Gulf of Mexico oil spill". But please, when the oil is finally all removed decades from now, please, I beg you, don't make a Wikipedia article titled "Kevin Costner's Miracle Oil Spill Rescue" --MichaelWestbrook (talk) 11:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose Taking a line that has been mentioned during previous requested moves, BP is not the only party involved. Transocean owned the rig (hence why I also oppose BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill) other company were silent partners, the blowout preventer was manufactured by yet another. I see huge NPOV issues with the requested name. There is already a family of articles developed, handling a requested name on the topic lead but not the sub-articles is not the appropriate way to go. Lastly, oil spills have followed a pattern of naming; location or ship + oil spill, however the proposes title does not respect that strategy.--Labattblueboy (talk) 11:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support Jcarle's reasoning sounds good to me. I support change to BP Gulf of Mexico oil spill. Gandydancer (talk) 12:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

• Neutral, leaning opposed The sinking of the Deepwater Horizon means that there can't be another spill associated with that name, making the article name descriptive and unique. Putting "BP" into the name seems more like a journalism headline than an encyclopedic headline, and in the form "BP Gulf of Mexico oil spill" seems to tempt the gods into giving BP another Gulf of Mexico oil spill for us to write about. The blame game will go on for years, and may never be solved. htom (talk) 15:08, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

• Strong oppose, as per all the solid arguments against made since the article started. To recap: it is misleading and opinionated to include BP in the name when there are so many other players involved and so many fingers being pointed. To do so goes against what Wikipedia is all about: logic and neutrality. The article is not improved by naming it "the BP oil spill" or something like that. The basic reason you all seem to want to change the name is to vent a little bit of anger at BP. That's completely understandable, but is not a valid reason to change the article name. Every other oil spill article that I know of on Wikipedia is named according to the same logic, I see nothing to suggest this should be any different. TastyCakes (talk) 15:19, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Mind reading only leads to anger and frustration since it suggests that others are being dishonest - it has no part in consensus forming. Please assume good faith on the part of others. My decision is not based on anger at BP, and I sincerely doubt that that is the basis for most of the others here. Gandydancer (talk) 17:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting anyone was being dishonest, but I do think a lot of people that want to insert BP into the name are basing their opinion on emotion rather than detached observation. Putting BP in the name only serves to peg more blame and responsibility on that company, a completely understandable human reaction but one which is at odds with Wikipedia's principles. TastyCakes (talk) 17:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

With your way of seeing the situation I could as easily suggest that you are the one who is basing your opinion on emotions rather than detached observation. As for your statement that "Putting BP in the name only serves to peg more blame and responsibility on that company", why so? BP got caught with their pants down, but what's new? A while ago it was the banks. As another editor remarked, we are all responsible...but in this article it still is BP there with their pants down. Gandydancer (talk) 23:10, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

And what is your opinion on how I see the situation? Regardless, you can suggest what you like but I disagree, I don't feel particularly emotional about this. To put it one last time, it was not just BP that was "caught with their pants down", naming the article as though it was is inaccurate and biased. Quite simply, I don't see any advantage to calling it "the BP spill" or some such variant, other than assigning more blame to BP (ie such a renaming would not help in finding the article or making its name more specific, informative or so on, but would break convention and make the title intrinsically judgmental). As far as I can see, the only reason to assign more blame to BP is if you're angry with them, which is not a valid reason on Wikipedia. But I've said what I think of this issue several times now and I really don't want to bicker back and forth. I'll live with whatever the closing moderator thinks is consensus. TastyCakes (talk) 23:28, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

My opinion about your opinion is that it is just one of many ways to look at the naming of the article. I've read them all and the one that seems most reasonable to me is to call it the BP Gulf of Mexico oil spill because it is in the Gulf and they were doing the drill. Gandydancer (talk) 12:18, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support: I have opposed renaming this article many times. However, the name of the disaster as used in the media has changed. It is referred to now as "Disaster in the Gulf" or something similar, and BP is almost always mentioned in the first sentence of any report on the topic. I must therefore say that the name of the article as used in Wikipedia does not match mainstream media, and someone looking for the article may be confused. I therefore believe the name of the article should be changed, and the current name be redirected. N419BH 16:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I am changing to Oppose. The common name is the "Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill" or "Disaster in the Gulf". Renaming to "BP oil spill" is inconsistent with Wikipedia precedent. "BP oil spill" is already a redirect. N419BH 17:58, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose assigning blame in the article title. Would set a really bad precedent.

Note a certain other incident, which didn't have the benefit of happening in 2010.. the Sedco 135-F rig, operated by Sedco Energy for Pemex caused a blowout of the Ixtoc I well, caught fire and sank, resulting in an oil spill capped nearly 10 months later. Sounds familiar? Behold the Pemex Gulf of Mexico oil spill. In any way, "Commonly blamed" has no place in the title. - Skullers (talk) 17:56, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - Current title is neutral, and various redirects point to it. No reason to rename the article. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

• Do not just say "support" or "oppose". This discussion should not be under "support" and "oppose" because there are more than option. My preferred name is Gulf of Mexico oil spill, 2010, as this is the most common or one of the most common names being used in reliable sources (WP:COMMONNAME), it is the most descriptive and it is neutral ie. not likely to be disputed (see WP:NPOV). Adding "2010" to the end also disambiguates it from any other spill in the same Gulf. People can work out the specific roles played by various institutions by reading the article. "BP Gulf of Mexico oil spill" is better than "Deepwater horizon oil spill", but Gulf of Mexico oil spill, 2010 is better than both. Gregcaletta (talk) 10:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The main problem I see with this format is assuming its effects will be primarily in 2010, like Northeastern United States blizzard of 1978 becoming last year's spill by 2011. Ixtoc I took 10 months to plug, making it a minimum 1978-1980 for the leak itself. Conservatively, assigning a timestamp even before the flow of oil is stopped wouldn't take into account the cleanup and all following effects, which would take it far beyond that frame... - Skullers (talk) 21:36, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose putting BP in the title at this time. Per comments above, many players were involved and using the geographic location, oil rig name and year suffices despite it being popular. 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill of 2010 or the current title serves the article and readers well as of now. There are also redirects and several "also known as" in the intro.--NortyNort (talk) 02:53, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

• oppose putting BP in the title I come here to get the facts, not the spin. The media likes to attach a large corporate brand to such stories to add sensationalism, and stir up public opinion. It's a cheap trick that detracts from the true complexities of the situation and Wikipedia IMO should not follow suit. We're better than that. Keep to the facts, i.e. date and location. Traveller palm (talk) 09:46, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support a name change. Consider that the name of the presidential commission appointed to study this, the National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling, sort of suggests an official name for this event, and thus the article can be called BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill. I think that name would satisfy a lot of the complaining going on, while only being a modest change from the present name. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:10, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose, per Baseball Bugs's arguements. And, additional reason is that it is expected that soon the oil will reach Europe - and it will not be only "Gulf of Mexico oil spill" Krasss (talk) 22:16, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

• Strongly Support, per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NPOV. See the full arguments I've previously made here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Deepwater_Horizon_oil_spill/Archive_2#Proposed_name_change and also here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Deepwater_Horizon_oil_spill/Archive_4#Request_to_rename_article_to_BP_oil_spill_of_2010. I also support the excellent points made by MichaelWestbrook in this section (above and below) and in archive 4. --emptytalk (talk) 22:48, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. BP is not the only player in this and it is not WP's business to scapegoat. A WP:COMMONNAME may (probably will) emerge over time, but I don't believe this has yet happened.--FormerIP (talk) 23:01, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support but with reservations, but common name seems to be outweigh NPOV, there are other responible parties but on the whole BP is the main culprit Weaponbb7 (talk) 23:44, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support - BP's name comes up in virtually every news report I see on this ongoing tragedy. Let's call this article what it actually is by putting BP at the start. I don't buy the argument that "other players" are involved - it is BP that has already promised 20 billion dollars for a clean up fund. This proposed name-change is just common sense! Jusdafax 11:08, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

• STRONGLY SUPPORT "BP" heads the article title, no matter what follows "BP", as long as common sense prevails...

again, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Deepwater_Horizon_oil_spill/Archive_4#Request_to_rename_article_to_BP_oil_spill_of_2010 MichaelWestbrook (talk) 06:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment (edit) - Without convention, any number of possible combinations can be proposed, as the previous discussions will attest. But there cannot be, an established, universally agreed-upon common name for this as the event unfolds. Per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events):

Where: Gulf of Mexico → Macondo Prospect → Deepwater Horizon

What: disaster/catastrophe → oil spill → blowout

When: ...of 2010(?) ongoing. Not of BP, or whoever. IF you were to break current pattern of established names and completely ignore the vessel involved, this gives you a perfectly bland Gulf of Mexico oil spill of 2010.

However, stamping "2010" to distinguish suggests that its effects will be felt primarily in 2010 before even the leak itself is stopped.

Also note that we have at least 6 other related articles named based on the current title. - Skullers (talk) 07:00, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - I am amazed at how many people want to exclude the use of BP in the name yet at the same time accept the use of Exxon in the Exxon Valdez spill. Did Exxon manufacture the ship? No. So why are we using Exxon? Because they were the operating party at the moment of the disaster . Whether or not other parties were also responsible along with BP is not being refuted by naming BP in the proposed name change, BP was the operating party at the moment of this disaster. I quote, U.S. President Barack Obama says the U.S. government will hold BP fully accountable for a massive oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico.. Did the BOP fail? Yes. Was it BP's fault? Maybe, maybe not. Does that make BP less accountable? No. Just because the BOP failed and BP did not manufacture it, it doesn't make it someone else's disaster. When Air France Flight 447 crashed, no one started calling it the Airbus Crash. It was called the Air France crash because Air France was the operating party at the moment of the crash. I don't want to argue for who's right, who's wrong, simply try to keep in mind, naming the page BP Gulf of Mexico oil spill simply attributes the page name to one that's factually correct (since BP was the operating party), sufficiently unique (let us hope there is never another BP disaster in the Gulf of Mexico) and easily identified by the general public (ask the public who made the BOP, most people can't answer you, ask people who spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico and I assure you everyone will answer BP immediately). Jcarle (talk) 02:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Jcarle, the Exxon Valdez was the name of the ship. Exxon has (or at least had) a habit of doing so. Same goes for Air France Flight 447, that's the name of the flight path, and the naming pattern used for such incidents. The Deepwater Horizon on the other hand is not owned by BP, it's leased by BP but owned by Transocean. Oil spills follow the strategy or location or ship + "oil spill" or "spill" Your method and logic don't really seem to apply in this instance.--Labattblueboy (talk) 02:12, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Exxon Valdez was the name of the vessel. Planes do not have individual names so identifying plane crash articles the same way as oil spills seems, to me, unworkably vague, naming after the flight name (which happen to include the airline) is thus the best available choice (which is why it is the convention, not just on Wikipedia but everywhere). Oil spills are, of course, a completely different situation, much more akin to other disasters, which do not generally include the company name on Wikipedia (or elsewhere, I would argue). Examples include the Bhopal disaster, the Texas City Refinery explosion, Piper Alpha and of course most oil spills. TastyCakes (talk) 02:21, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I can understand your reasoning behind willing to exclude BP from the page name. Would you at least agree that Deepwater Horizon oil spill is in fact factually and technically incorrect? Perhaps a move to 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill may gather more support? Jcarle (talk) 14:47, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I would call it incorrect, misleading perhaps, but isn't it equivalent to saying "Air France Flight 477" is incorrect because it was the plane, not the flight, that crashed? Using the rig name uniquely identifies the source of the leak in a neutral way. That said, I agree that naming it geographically would also be neutral and I wouldn't mind that. The only argument against such a name is that all the other oil spills (from tankers or platforms that don't actually store the oil) are named like this article, unless more than one vessel is involved in which case the geographic location seems to be used. Anyway, you can put me down for a strong oppose on anything including BP in the name, a neutral leaning opposed for switching to a geographical name. TastyCakes (talk) 15:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - reprinted from Archive 4 of this talk page, I feel the need to remind editors who may be undecided...

Consider this from WP:Article titles:

Neutrality and article titles

Conflicts often arise over whether an article title complies with Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy. Resolving such debates depends on whether the article title is a common name (taken from reliable sources) or a descriptive title (created by Wikipedia editors).

Non-neutral but common names

When a subject or topic has a common name (as evidenced through usage in a significant proportion of English-language reliable sources), Wikipedia should follow the sources and use that name as our article title. Sometimes that common name will include non-neutral words that Wikipedia normally avoids (Examples include Boston massacre and Tea Pot Dome scandal). In such cases, the commonality of the name overrides our desire to avoid passing judgment (see bold italics below). This is acceptable because the non-neutrality and judgment is that of the sources, and not that of Wikipedia editors. True neutrality means we do not impose our opinions over that of the sources, even when our opinion is that the name used by the sources is judgmental.

It seems to me that by avoiding "BP" in the article title, we discredit the facts and reliable sources, deferring instead to our opinion that the name used by the sources is judgmental.

Also, may I add that I am noticing repeated arguments for keeping the spill named "Deepwater Horizon" because it would "follow convention" as Deepwater Horizon was the "name of the vessel". Okay, first may I ask why is it so necessary to "follow convention"? And secondly, did BP overrule the vessel's operator (Transocean) prior to the blowout, which caused the blowout, which caused the explosion, which sank the "vessel", and most importantly, began the gushing of oil from a mile down before (and regardless of) any explosion or sinking? Am I abusing Wikipedia like a "crystal ball" by saying that BP overruled Transocean when Transocean wanted to slow things down to better gauge the safety of the drilling process hours before the tragedy? In essence, that BP took over operational procedures of Deepwater Horizon, at least clearly immediately prior to the evening of April 20, 2010? Is there no reliable source to that end? MichaelWestbrook (talk) 15:50, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Why is it necessary to break convention when breaking convention would only introduce bias? I'm all for breaking convention when it makes sense. Breaking convention because we want to judge BP in the title just this one time is not a good reason. To your second question: not that I have seen, at least not that won't almost certainly be hotly contested in court later. I don't think they've officially said what they think went wrong, so proving who was in charge of the rig at the time is likely to be heavily disputed. Anyway, as Baseball Bugs has said, this is a fruitless argument that is unlikely to lead to change and I don't think we should waste any more time on this most minor of changes (adding two letters to the title). People can find the article and read the article just fine. At the end of the day I don't really care what the title is, I've said what I think is the better title, but I don't want to spend any more time on this. TastyCakes (talk) 16:12, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

The questions I posed are for all editors to contemplate, not directed at you TastyCakes. And I am disappointed to see that just because editors have differing viewpoints, that there is a perception that discussing the philosophy behind an edit request (or lack of edit) is "fruitless" and a "waste of time". What if I felt discussing "nuclear options" is a waste of time? Should I comment there under that talk page section that I don't think you should be wasting time? How would that make you feel? There are editors who are contributing to this section, and there were editors who contributed to other article rename sections. Perhaps they valued their time spent doing so. MichaelWestbrook (talk) 16:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Others can make their own judgments, but in my opinion arguing over whether to include BP in the title has been a distraction from actually improving this article. I was one of those that spent time "contributing to the rename section", and I did value the time I spent doing so, which is why I'm going to stop, starting now. Please don't inject drama into this, let's just move on. I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings, I assure you I didn't mean to belittle the editing you've done on the article. It seems to me everyone has given their reasons for wanting to move or to leave the article, now lets just let a moderator decide and move on with other things in the mean time. TastyCakes (talk) 16:58, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

lol you didn't hurt my feelings. I was just articulating a point. No drama! :D MichaelWestbrook (talk) 17:12, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

You question the need for convention right after quoting said convention to justify your rename.

And as i said in Archive 4: The examples used on WP:TITLE, Boston Massacre and Teapot Dome scandal happened in 1770 and 1923 respectably, and by no means do we have a title agreed on by "the sources" AS THE EVENT IS HAPPENING. I also believe Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events) applies more specifically, and since there CANNOT BE an established, universally agreed-upon common name, the where/what/when(?) format would be more appropriate, IF there was reason to change it. In the future it may well be known as "The Great Spill", but now there cannot be such an accepted name, as even our own disagreement in the talk section indicates. I believe that many of those suggesting inclusion of "BP" mistake their local/perceived trend for "everybody knows it as" the BP spill. - Skullers (talk) 02:42, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Well put Skullers, and I realize now that indeed my referencing WP:Article titles is perhaps just as much "following convention" as any other following of convention! haha! :D I stand corrected. And yes, I admit, my argument is based primarily on the fact that most everyone on Earth knows this as the BP spill. Which to me and my common sense, makes it "an established, universally agreed-upon common name". Hmmm... MichaelWestbrook (talk) 03:03, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

IMO the fact that everyone on Earth knows this as The oil spill in Gulf of Mexico (from what i've seen so far) has to do with its location on Earth being the first thing to know, all the relevant details being covered. How many international polls were taken on the preferred name for the incident? I'm afraid i don't speak enough languages to count too many news organizations, but i'd a start with the interwiki links on this very page :). Maybe they should all be renamed after this one? - Skullers (talk) 04:29, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

A lot of sources are just calling it "the oil spill" because at this point, everyone and their grandma knows that they are talking about this particular oil spill. The problem is that in the future, that name won't be appropriate or even useful... Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 07:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

• BP Gulf of Mexico suggests a part of the Gulf itself that belongs entirely to BP. There is no such thing as the BP Gulf. The closest would be Macondo/MC252, and not then. The way i see it, BP is to Macondo what Pemex was to Ixtoc I. Perhaps someone can elaborate on the status as clear info on the 1979 disaster seems scarce compared to the current unprecedented one. - Skullers (talk) 02:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

• Archiving of the naming debates: I just need to add here that I don't think this discussion has benefited from being interrupted and re-started so many times by the automated archiving. I understand why it's necessary to prevent the talk page from getting too long, but it was counterproductive for this discussion. The same arguments come up time and again without there being much progress towards consensus. --emptytalk (talk) 22:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. This is what, the third go-round? Jusdafax 14:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

At least. Major discussions here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Deepwater_Horizon_oil_spill/Archive_2#Proposed_name_change and here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Deepwater_Horizon_oil_spill/Archive_4#Request_to_rename_article_to_BP_oil_spill_of_2010 with plenty of other minor sections and threads all over the archives. --emptytalk (talk) 17:15, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Changed archiving from 2 to 5 days. Beagel (talk) 18:29, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

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

U.S. laws prevent cleanup

I have created a section called "U.S. laws prevent cleanup" and included the following. These things are notable, and are receiving extensive media coverage:

"Although the Netherlands uses skimmers to clean up oil spills, such devices are banned by U.S environmental regulations, because the skimmers allow a tiny trace amount of the oil to remain in the water."

"The governments of Canada, Croatia, France, Germany, Ireland, Mexico, the Netherlands, Norway, Romania, Republic of Korea, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom, and the United Nations all offered to help clean up the oil, but the U.S. government turned down all of their offers of help because it would have violated the Jones Act."

Back on the Chain Gang (talk) 13:49, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Please don't add this again without more discussion. In the International section help is already discussed and the US is now accepting it, so that covers the first part of your edit. I don't feel that the skimmer info is important enough to add even though, if true, we are stupid not to be using them. But if you feel it's important enough, why don't you try adding it somewhere and see if it flys... Gandydancer (talk) 15:56, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Gandydancer. I checked every source, and none are reliable to this end: providing factual reference to the U.S. government using the Jones Act for any reason regarding this event. MichaelWestbrook (talk) 17:33, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Here is an article mentioning a request to waive the Jones act for skimmer ships. Rigzone has been used as a reliable source before, if the information is deemed notable enough I think it is supported. TastyCakes (talk) 17:58, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

And [6] is a translation of the Dutch article (apparently a reliable source) that makes claims about the Jones act. TastyCakes (talk) 18:05, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Yet on further investigation this article suggests the concerns are overblown, and says that Thad Allen says there are already foreign ships helping with the cleanup. "Anyplace that's got skimming capability that's available, we're willing to talk to them, and we actually have, in some cases, actually transferred the equipment down and will continue to do that." TastyCakes (talk) 18:08, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

"if the information is deemed notable enough I think it is supported." Both sources just referenced support my point. The information is not deemed notable enough, because there is no reference to the U.S. government even using the Jones Act for any reason regarding this event, in either article. MichaelWestbrook (talk) 18:13, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Here is the interview with Thad Allen that I think clears this up. In short, the Jones act applies to foreign skimmer vessels if they are operating within 3 miles of the coast. Currently none of those are operating in that area. To do so would require a waiver of the Jones act, which he says had not been requested up to that time (yesterday, unclear if this changes that) but that he would have no problem signing such a waiver. TastyCakes (talk) 18:26, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

In an article of this size and scope digressions like mention of the Jones Act are strictly irrelevant. The quoted State Dept. spokesperson stated the reason: US can handle it. The White House confirmed two days ago: "Admiral Allen announced the development of specific guidance to ensure accelerated processing of requests for Jones Act waivers should they be received as a part of the BP oil spill response. Currently, 15 foreign-flagged vessels are involved in cleanup efforts. No Jones Act waivers have been granted because none of these vessels have required such a waiver to conduct their operations in the Gulf of Mexico." [7] Paulscrawl (talk) 18:34, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wall St. Journal stated:

"Why Obama turned down foreign ships to clean up the Gulf... in the two weeks immediately after the spill, 13 foreign governments reached out and offered their assistance. The U.S. response? Thanks, but no thanks... One month later, many of these offers are still outstanding... The Belgian dredging group DEME says it has offered the U.S. specialized vessels and technology that can help clean up the spill in three to four months compared to the estimated nine months that the U.S. will need. There are only a handful of these vessels in the world, and most of them belong to Dutch and Belgian companies. So why aren't we calling on them?... Blame it on the protectionist Merchant Marine Act of 1920, also called the Jones Act, that requires ships working in U.S. waters to be built, operated and owned by Americans. Building specialized clean-up vessels in the U.S. is too expensive because of high union labor costs, and unions don't want ships built with foreign labor to be used in U.S. waters.... Presidents can suspend the Jones Act in emergencies, as George W. Bush did after Hurricane Katrina. But the Obama Administration continues to maintain that this isn't necessary... there's no excuse for turning away ships that can clean up the oil merely because that might offend Mr. Obama's union friends..."

Back on the Chain Gang (talk) 04:45, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Back on the Chain Gang, I am about to make a point, as I don't think you are following the language of logic from others above yet, so bear with me as I get a little more "colorful" with my argument refuting your reference of an editorial opinion... Here, watch, I am now writing an article, which is just as much a RS as your source above, based on your logic:

North Korea Torpedoes the Joneses

How North Korea rubbed America's face in the Jones Act

So why did the Deepwater Horizon oil well have a blowout causing the rig explosion?... Blame it on North Korea, who torpedoed the well, rubbing our faces in the Jones Act by stealing the Red October from Russia, a submarine so silent and invisible it could not be detected by radar. Also, martian aliens beamed a really big laser from Mars down to the rig immediately following the blowout, prefacing what is soon to be the War of the Worlds. Also, Darth Vader was seen a mile below the Gulf surface on the ocean floor using his lightsaber to destroy the BOP blowout preventer hours prior to the tragedy. Obi-Wan Kenobi was not available for comment, but Congress has summoned him to Washington to explain why he didn't regulate the situation better, suggesting that the Force is "in bed", so to speak, with the Dark Side.

(Michael Westbrook is a contributing editor for The Wall Street Journal)

MichaelWestbrook (talk) 10:55, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

May the blowout preventer be with you. Paulscrawl (talk) 11:55, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I heard that the reason they don't just pop the BOP and replace it with a new one is that they discovered a pocket of magma right near the well bore, and if they let the well run free for even a second, we could have the first man-made volcano in history. I can just see that 300 ton BOP, along with three miles of well casing going off like a soda-straw rocket, blowing a big hole in the bottom of the drill ship, and ending up in low-earth orbit. Hey, if this gets on the news, remember, you first heard it here. :>) --Dave (talk) 19:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

You're not my 12 year old grandson, are you? Gandydancer (talk) 10:17, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

LOL uh oh, we're having fun again on Wikipedia. Facebook, move over. :D MichaelWestbrook (talk) 11:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Possibility and evidence of sub-sea floor damage in well casing

There are a number of experts which say that there is either a substantial risk that the well casing is damaged deep in the seabed, or (Senator William Nelson) that this kind of damage has occured already. If this is true, it is a pretty gloomy development. Because the sea floor cannot withstand a high-pressure intense flow of oil, it could lead to a truly uncontrollable situation in which oil pours out from many places in the sea floor with an exponentially increasing rate. Oil experts call this a "doomsday scenario", as even relief wells might not longer be effective.

As I don't participate in editing the English-language article, here are sources I found:

Thad Allen in Toronto Star : Nuking leaking oil well not an option: White House: "The failure of the so-called top kill procedure - which entailed pumping mud into the well at high velocity - suggested there actually could be something wrong with the well casing, and there could be open communication in the strata or the rock formations below the sea floor," Allen said.

"I don't think we want to take a chance of somehow disturbing that where the oil would have direct access to the sea floor. To my mind that would be a pretty serious risk."

In the same article Carol Browner as follows: "We are against blowing up the Gulf of Mexico," Carol Browner, Obama's energy and climate change czar, said on MSNBC.

"You could end up with an uncontrolled situation - rather than just having one point of leakage, which is this well, you could end up with a lot of places leaking. This is obviously a very difficult situation, but we wouldn't want to make it more difficult."

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2010/06/evidence-points-to-destruction-beneath.html

In http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2010/06/10/DI2010061004195.html: John Hofmeister (former president of Royal Dutch Shell) in the Washington Post vom 11. Juni 2010: Yuma, Ariz.: What are the chances that the well casing below the sea floor has been compromised, and that gas and oil are coming up the outside of the well casing, eroding the surrounding soft rock. Could this lead to a catastrophic geological failure, unstoppable even by the relief wells?

John Hofmeister: This is what some people fear has occurred. It is also why the "top kill" process was halted. If the casing is compromised the well is that much more difficult to shut down, including the risk that the relief wells may not be enough. If the relief wells do not result in stopping the flow, the next and drastic step is to implode the well on top of itself, which carries other risks as well.

We really need to find out what went wrong from the beginning so that we don't have this happen again.

Regarding the possible consequences, see this article in "The Oildrum": http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6593/648967

According to Senator Bill Nelson, such a damage has developed already: http://www.floridaoilspilllaw.com/senator-confirms-reports-that-wellbore-is-pierced-oil-seeping-from-seabed-in-multiple-places

and http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2010/06/07/senator-nelson-says-bp-well-integrity-may-be-blown/

Finally, take a look at these video images from the see floor, taken by the Viking Poseidon 1 ROV in some distance from the well: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2RxIQP0IBU These images show clearly a dark liquid coming out of the sea floor.

--91.20.147.202 (talk) 07:35, 20 June 2010 (UTC) (Joise from the German WP)

this is serious, I heard it too. Info about that should be put in.--DAI (Δ) 10:49, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Here is another video: http://blog.alexanderhiggins.com/2010/06/12/bp-investigates-oil-methane-leak-1-mile-original-leak/

If the coordinate calculation there is right, then it is more than 5800 feet away from the well.

Here are more pictures: http://blog.alexanderhiggins.com/2010/05/24/breaking-news-reports-huge-explosions-seafloor-collapse-beneath-gulf-oil-spill/

The comments sound pretty afraid, and some comments don't seem reasonable to me. But sticking to the facts - it seems improbable that that what is seen to be rising out of the sea floor is something other than oil or perhaps liquid / super-critical methane. --91.20.147.202 (talk) 11:34, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I feel that it is too early to mention this in the article, however Nelson was on Face the Nation this morning and the moderator asked him about this. He replied, "It's true. I want to talk about that, but..." and then he did not get back to it. All things considered, it is just not possible to believe that he just forgot to get back to it... You can read the transcript at the Face the Nation site. I think it was on page 6. Gandydancer (talk) 21:01, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

What exactly would you mean by "to early"? Please explain! --91.20.184.39 (talk) 21:43, 21 June 2010 (UTC) (Joise)

I think he means it is still not widely reported and appears to still be largely speculation. TastyCakes (talk) 00:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that's what she means too! Gandydancer (talk) 00:59, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Oops, sorry :) TastyCakes (talk) 16:26, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it high time to include these realistic and widely reported concerns of experts for the very real possibility of sub-sea floor damage in the casing and well bore as potential cause for even worse problems, as we now have several reliable sources quoting authoritative experts. This one, from the generally excellent oil spill coverage of New Orleans' Times-Picayune, covers the waterfront, with background explanations and telling, recent quotes from across the spectrum of informed, expert opinion:

• "One thing that nobody knows is the condition of the well bore .. . We don't know if the well bore has been compromised or not. One of the reasons we did not continue with top kill at higher pressures, there was a concern that if we increased the pressure too hard it might do damage to the casings and the well bore. What we didn't want was open communication of any oil from the reservoir outside the well bore that might get into the formation and work its way to the sub sea floor and then result in uncontrolled discharge at that point. That has not happened, and that's the reason they're taking such precautions and did not proceed any further with the top kill," [U.S. Coast Guard Admiral Thad] Allen said. ... "We don't know exactly the condition of the well bore .. .That's the reason we didn't go . . . to excessive pressures on the top kill and decided that we'd deal with containment and then go for the final relief well."
• "Everybody's worried about all of this. That's all people are talking about," said Don Van Nieuwenhuise, director of geoscience programs at University of Houston.
• "There is a very high level of concern for the integrity of the well," said Bob Bea, the University of California Berkeley engineering professor ... who organized the Deepwater Horizon Study Group. "The likelihood of failure is extremely high," Bea said. "We could have multiple losses of containment..."
• BP spokesman Toby Odone said Friday his company can shed little light on the subject. "We don't know" anything about the condition of the underground portion of the well, Odone said. "We don't know whether the casing inside the well is damaged."

Plenty more in that excellent RS. Who wants to take at crack at a couple of summary sentences, while I update the yet-again enlarged fishery closures map? Paulscrawl (talk) 19:09, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it's worth mentioning that this is why they didn't try the top kill procedure at higher pressures, and why they can't just "cap the well". But I think we should be careful about giving too much space to this (for now) hypothetical issue in this already sprawling article. TastyCakes (talk) 19:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I can't see why the size of the article should have anything to do with whether or not this information is included. If someone can make a good case for including it (good refs, etc.), the implications are so profound that there is no reason to not include it, certainly not suggesting that the article is already "sprawling" (though I do not feel that it is sprawling at all...) Gandydancer (talk) 20:04, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

What I mean is an in depth section on this (ie these people think it's likely, these people think it isn't, these people think it would be this bad, these people think it would be this bad) etc would be detrimental. Saying "concerns about the integrity of the casing, failure of which could see oil and gas escaping to the surface outside of the well bore, played into the decision to not attempt the top kill procedure at higher pressure. Oil and gas breaking through to the surface outside of the wellbore remains a concern to many observers, as such a breakthrough could increase the flow rate and make containment more difficult." is about as much detail as I'd put in. Incidentally, I'm not sure why some of these sources are suggesting that such a breakthrough seriously threatens the effectiveness of the relief wells. Those wells are set to intersect far below anywhere that the well is likely to develop communication to surface, and I haven't seen any technical descriptions of what the worries are. TastyCakes (talk) 20:22, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done Nice summary of RS, TastyCakes! Shamelessly copied word for word and added to article, just after apropos comments of Adm. Allen in "Efforts to contain the oil spill" section. Credit to you, for the edification of posterity, contained in edit summary. Paulscrawl (talk) 00:39, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I observe that some people use the topic to promote extremely gloomy worldviews which are certainly not rationally founded (the spill triggering the activation of supervolcanos, continuous spill of abiotic oil, Day of Last Judgement and so on). Here we are at a frontier of knowledge. Therefore it's important to put the matter in calm and factual style.

Why damage in the well casing could defeat the bottom kill procedure - there are several people who do think this, including Matthew Simmons - see also the article by "dougr" on The Oildrum. The topic is somewhat controversial, see this article. As far as I understand the scenario, fears are that the entire well casing in the lower part of the well might be ejected by the pressure and by loss of support from the surrounding formation. The cited interview with John Hofmeister seems to confirm that there are serious concerns.

The bottom kill procedure works by drilling a hole which intersects the wild well at a quite deep point, and then pumping heavy drilling mud into it. As in communicating vessels, the mud will rise within the uncontrolled well, thus building pressure until the pressure of the oil below is counter-balanced. This works because the mud is heavier than the oil, but the oil pushes from below in a relatively small telescopic tube. When balace is reached, the oil would stop to flow upwards. At this stage, it would be possible to inject cement and close the well.

However, when the lower part of the well casing is lost, the well has no bottom as there is no tube anymore. It's like communicating vessels when the vessels have a hole in the bottom - liquid will pour out and not rise in the second part of the vessel. The drilling mud would simply disappear into the formation, as it is porous and also the mud is heavier than the oil. Under this circumstances, no equilibrium would be reached and therefore it isn't possible to apply cement (remember that the oil moving in the well has not only pressure but a lot of kinetic moment). This is my own understanding of the article by Dougr. May be I got something wrong so please recheck it. Maybe also that Matthew Simmons is overly pessimistic - I won't exclude that, but I think he can be counted as an expert, albeit a rather pessimist voice.

One note more, I saw that the place of the underwater video linked above isn't that far away from the BOP. But there are videos covering other sites which are said to be more than one mile away from the BOP. --91.20.156.222 (talk) 22:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC) (Joise from German WP)

Joise, I, too, am not ready to cite a blog entry, whether from theoildrum.com or themarketfinancial.com, but those are interesting thoughts, as is your summary analysis. Here is another scary analysis by a credible expert, on marketoracle.co.uk of all places, worth looking at, but not citing until a RS picks up on it, if then -- very interesting for more tech-minded readers: Design Considerations for a Shock-Hardened Deepwater Drilling Rig and Plausibility Argument for the Loss of the Deepwater Horizon Drilling Rig Stephen_Rinehart, who knows a thing or two about underwater rigs and explosive forces. (WP user David Macquigg should take a look at his 23-point tech analysis, too, while ignoring his comparison to "The Crisis" predicted in The Fourth Turning by Strauss and Howe )

I've updated this article page using TastyCakes's nice summary of news source, which I cited above. The other blog sources mentioned, like the one just mentioned, aren't quite ready for prime time, IMO. Also, please let your German WP friends know of need to update fishing closure map and associated text. Updated today, when I noticed June 2 map I uploaded is used on German WP site: Golf von Mexiko and Ölkatastrophe im Golf von Mexiko 2010. Interesting article title for latter. Thanks. Paulscrawl (talk) 00:39, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done -- updated Diskussion on both. Prost!

Fischfangverbot

Neue Karte vom 21. Juni 2010. Siehe Text und Verweise auf die englische Wikipedia auf http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepwater_Horizon_oil_spill Vielen Dank für alles, was Sie tun, um diese Krise zu bringen, um die Aufmerksamkeit der Welt. Bitte entschuldigen Sie meine Google Translate Deutsch! -- Paulscrawl (talk) 01:43, 23 June 2010 (UTC)