Talk:Deepwater Horizon explosion

Extraneous Info

The section on transocean safety record is not relevant to the topic. this topic is about the disaster. If anything, it is poorly placed. please move to later in the article - current placement makes it cumbersome to read. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.223.230.151 (talk) 01:10, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

dates and organisation

While I understand that this is still a very new article, reading this, I can't help but to be confused by the lack of dates. I'm not sure what happened when, and how it relates to the explosion. Please fix. Griffinofwales (talk) 19:36, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

What? I see lots of dates. Too many, in fact, for the WP:SUMMARY style that will certainly be needed to make this event clearer. But for even more dates, see the linked Timeline of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Paulscrawl (talk) 19:52, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I am in agreement with Paulscrawl, we already have plenty when it comes to dates. Frankly, I find that there are too many dates included for comments that don't entirely need them.--Labattblueboy (talk) 17:10, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Today January 24, 2012 I sneezed, I can provide more if that would help clear things up. PixieDragon (talk) 14:10, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Who was on the rig?

Good morning knowledgeable Wiki contributors. I'm confused about who was actually on the rig and this article didn't help me. A couple of days after the explosion, a friend who does research for Shell in Egypt happened to come home and the idea I got from him was that BP had one guy there, probably in charge, most personal were from another company (Transocean?), the current operation (casing, I guess) was being handled by Haliburton, the BOP was owned or handled by guys from yet another company. I came here now, some weeks into the accident, to clarify this in my mind but there is nothing clear here about this. The US media and government are going bananas over BP, presumably as they are legally responsible, but I can't find any media reports on who was really there, who had their hands on the metal. As time goes by, the number of companies mentioned in various capacities keeps rising, now past a dozen, I think, and it's utterly confusing. Can anyone out there please straighten it out and put a new section in this article or the main oil spill article? 78.149.250.154 (talk) 08:33, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

The Rig was run by transocean under contract with BP. According to the news reports there were 8 (?) BP staff on board at the time of the explosion but most of those were executives who were only visiting. Usually the Client (BP though Anadarko and Mitsui also had minor stakes) will usually have a couple of represenatives (Company Men) onboard to oversea the operation. All the other personnel would have either worked for the operator (Transocean) or a Subcontractor (i.e. Haliburton)working directly for the Client (BP) . To answer your question as to who had their "hands on the metal" that would be Transocean personnel.

BUT BP, as they leased the block (drilling area) from the US government and own any oil coming from wells on the lease (along with their junior partners), also "own" any spill caused while operating on the lease (I think this is according to US law) and accordingly have to foot the bill for the cleanup. The question of who is responsible for the clean up is a separate matter to who was responsible for the explosion and resulting spill. until there is an exact cause found for the failure there is no knowing who is the responsible - The Rig, BOP and operating personnel were supplied by Transocean, The Casing provided by BP and the cementing work was done by Haliburton. Discojim (talk) 03:55, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

We Need to Include the Truth

Enough with the censorship. Along with some other brave editors, I have been adding the truth about this tragedy, namely the North Korean attack and the Obama coverup. Why is this being censored? People need to hear the TRUTH! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.16.168.221 (talk) 10:54, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

And what has been covered up this time? Was Elvis Presley responsible? Reliable sourcing, please, not "The Truth".--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:41, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

There is no censorship going on. Statements need reliable sources, as you've been told many times. I've raised the issue of stewweb at WP:SBL as consensus is that it is not a reliable source and is straying into the realms of an attack site, which are definitely not allowed to be used on Wikipedia. Mjroots (talk) 05:51, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Sadly "The Truth" appears to be a load of antisemitic rubbish.[1] Let's hope this receives a block at WP:SBL.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Category inclusion

I was about to include "Category:Deepwater Horizon oil spill" onto A Whale, when I realized that it wasn't spread among other other ships and politicians. Is there some standard that must be met before inclusion into it?--Hourick (talk) 14:36, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wreck

Hi all. Where does the wreck of the Deepwater Horizon lie? Can anything be salvaged? There doesn't seem to be any information anywhere about what's happened to the rig once it sank.Captain deathbeard (talk) 12:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Aftermath?

Might be good idea for something to be added about that. 82.169.255.79 (talk) 18:24, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

That would be better served in the Deepwater Horizon oilspill page, rather than here. Though, a link to that section of the article might be warranted. Thoughts, anyone?Wzrd1 (talk) 03:18, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Analysis of Blowout Preventer

Does anyone have the report on the BOP from the well? There is only passing mention that the BOP arrived at NASA too late for the report of its inspection to be included in the primary report, but no link to that NASA report.Wzrd1 (talk) 02:51, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Collision between the articles

Article at Deepwater Horizon oil spill says that 17 people were injured at Deepwater Horizon while this article says 16. So which number is correct? (Jan) 23:39, 17 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.151.127.108 (talk)

References

The following reference article is no longer available via the link provided. Reference- 35. ^ Carroll, Joe (31 May 2010). "BP Cited ‘Well Control Situation’ Six Weeks Before Blowout". Bloomberg Businessweek. Retrieved 2010-06-04. ArishiaNishi (talk) 16:08, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Problematic edit

This series of edits[2] is the kind of thing that has happened before, in which a clear, reader-friendly discussion of a technical subject, sourced to a reliable secondary source (the Wall Street Journal), has been turned into impenetrable gobbledygook sourced to a primary source. That is why we have WP:PRIMARY. Beyond that, it is essentially a POV edit as it turns a clear exposition of what happened into a kind of murky wall of mud. This kind of edit needs to stop. Coretheapple (talk) 16:41, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Spending two paragraphs on a non existent acoustic trigger adds nothing of value to the section because its a red herring, the AMF functioned as designed. If I can find a secondary source summarizing the DNV report, would that be adequate? WeldNeck (talk) 16:47, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Certainly, if you find a reliable secondary source, by all means add it. But do not remove the Wall Street Journal source. You cannot interpret a highly technical primary source in order to contradict and override what a reliable secondary source says, and then go ahead and remove that secondary source because of your original research. What you're doing is completely contradicted by policy. If the Wall Street Journal's coverage of this area is inadequate then you need to take it up with the Wall Street Journal, not place your original research in the article. If there was no source on this issue it would be a different matter, but there is. Please do not edit war over this, as you are clearly acting against policy. Of course, I can't prevent you from doing so, but it is inadvisable. Coretheapple (talk) 16:54, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I removed the WSJ report because its not relevant, not because its contradicted by the DNV report. Sorry if I wasnt more clear about that. Saying the BOP was not equipped with an acoustic trigger informs the reader as much as saying it wasn't equipped with a Flux capacitor ... its completely irrelevant to what happened. The DNV report details what loss of communication safety devices were installed on the BOP. WeldNeck (talk) 17:00, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Please, on its face it is relevant to the article. We just can't yank out articles because we believe in our heart of hearts that they are wrong, and cite primary source documents in our support. I could dig into that same primary source document to try to make sense of it but then I would be carrying out original research myself. We are supposed to let secondary sources of reliability interpret documents like that. Coretheapple (talk) 17:03, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Just another point, if you don't mind: at least as objectionable was that it replaced a clear and understandable explanation with one that was opaque and filled with technical terms. Please keep in mind that we're supposed to simplify these things for the reader and that is one of the reasons why we rely on secondary sources, which is to do that. Coretheapple (talk) 17:15, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Apologies to WeldNeck for leaving a note on his Talk after the conversation was on here. Okay, so there seem to be two separate issues here. Firstly, what exactly are we trying to establish with the primary source? Is it a simple statement of fact, or something more complex? Does the statement of fact contradict secondary sources? Primary sources aren't forbidden, they just have to be used judiciously. The content that was removed will be probably be a more complicated discussion. Geogene (talk) 17:30, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

• Here just 2 of many sources showing how problematic the use of this primary source is: Fed board: Keep companies from oil spill evidence and Blowout preventer manufacturer questions Deepwater Horizon forensic report.TMCk (talk) 20:09, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

It sounds like you are rejecting the report itself, not the fact that it's a primary source. Geogene (talk) 20:19, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Nope, not doing such thing personally but wiki-vise it's problematic and thus we should use secondary sources in regards to the report.TMCk (talk) 20:28, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I did a quick Google for secondary sources on interpreting that report and found two good ones, the New York Times and the Christian Science Monitor ([3],[4]). What I got from reading them is that (1) there was some kind of switch to trigger the BOP if contact was lost with the rig (2) it didn't work, since the BOP was triggered two days later by ROV, and (3) it didn't really matter anyway since the BOP was not able to seal the well, due to forces exceeding its design capabilities. Geogene (talk) 20:14, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

That's what they said in the report but they also acknowledged the following:
"But under questioning earlier this week, Det Norske Veritas officials acknowledged that they had no physical evidence of the pipe bending and that the elastic bowing of the pipe was simply their theory of what happened based on modeling."
TMCk (talk) 20:25, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

This is a textbook example of a primary source that cannot and should not be used. Oh it sounds so impressive! Look at all the big words it has! But at bottom it is just a theory, and a disputed one at that. As for the secondary sources, I don't see a problem with them certainly, as long as the objections are included. Coretheapple (talk) 20:32, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

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

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

• http://www.offshore-technology.com/projects/macondoprospect/

  Triggered by \boffshore-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

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

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 11:24, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 22:03, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Deepwater Horizon explosion. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.oilspillnews.net/bp-oil-spill-news/all-eyes-on-bp-report-on-gulf-oil-spill-disaster-%C2%AB-artesia-news/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:54, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

[[:File:Deepwater Horizon offshore drilling unit on fire 2010.jpg] to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Deepwater Horizon offshore drilling unit on fire 2010.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on April 20, 2016. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2016-04-20. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:01, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Picture of the day

On April 20, 2010, the Deepwater Horizon, a semi-submersible Mobile Offshore Drilling Unit owned and operated by Transocean and drilling for BP in the Macondo Prospect oil field southeast of the Louisiana coast, exploded. The explosion killed eleven workers, injured sixteen others, and caused the Deepwater Horizon to catch fire and sink. The same blowout also caused a massive offshore oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. This spill has been considered the largest accidental marine oil spill to date, as well as the largest environmental disaster in U.S. history.Photograph: United States Coast Guard; edit: Ottojula and Mark Miller