Talk:Offshore oil spill prevention and response

Outline of total realistic context for "Offshore oil spill prevention and response"

I wrote the lead with the following outline in mind. The outline is designed to meet several criteria at once and really lock out some problems we had at first and some we have very good reason to fear for the future, given the timely nature of the controversies and the experience of long-suffering experienced and responsible editors on Deepwater Horizon oil spill:

• answer readers' questions -- prominently: how can offshore oil spills happen and what can be done to prevent them and clean them up?
• maximize use of existing technology articles, while both placing the parts within the whole (rig, response) and putting them in comparative context
• preserve total context of technology repeatedly emphasized in sources -- history, regulations, & human factors
• stay close to reliable third party sources of evaluative nature to help ensure NPOV
• eliminate temptation to original research by emphasizing mandated Best And Safest Technologies (BAST) standard, used in above studies
• keep the holistic, total life-cycle approach to the inter-relating factors that have all been demonstrably taken into account by the enabling legislation regulating offshore drilling

1. History - just one paragraph on early 1940s, safety record to date, big spills linked, link to offshore oil drilling controversy
2. Regulations - just one paragraph linking above history with consequent regulatory efforts: mention of 1952 passage of OCS, 1978 amendments following Exxon Valdez establishing BAST standard, 1990 Oil Pollution Act, and a sentence or two on empirical studies of efficacy of these enforcement measures -- to talk of oil spill prevention with no mention of legal & economic sanctions is totally unrealistic
3. Technologies -- this section would represent the lion's share of the article, but in the necessary context of the quite short sections above and below it. BAST as legislated mandate is absolutely key, as it allows, indeed, enforces, NPOV comparative discussion of Best And Safest Technologies. Technology Assessment & Research (TA&R) Program neatly divides in two:
   1. Oil drilling - aim of this multi-paragraph section is to provide synoptic overview of all the parts and pieces of a working rig. Scores of third-party evaluative studies under TAR's Operational Safety and Engineering Research (OSER). Ties together stand-alone articles: Category:Drilling technology; unlike stand-alone articles, allows summary of comparative efficacy of various components under different conditions and combinations. Studies: http://www.mms.gov/tarprojectcategories/drilling.htm & http://www.mms.gov/tarprojectcategories/deepwate.htm etc
      1. Summary overview paragraph of offshore rig, with simplified illustration of complete rig, with labeled parts, parts labeled only if relevant to subsequent discussion of oil spill prevention. Each part relevant to oil spill prevention to be discussed in separate paragraph, ordered top to bottom, or vice versa, or in some other logical order implicit in lead paragraph, each part/paragraph with clear labeled detail illustration, link to fuller WP article, and summary review of BAST studies -- just a few sentences each.
      2. Fluid flow regulators
      3. Wellheads
      4. Well casings
      5. Blowout preventers
      6. etc.
   2. Oil spill response -- aim of this multi-paragraph section is to provide synoptic overview of all the options. Scores of third-party evaluative studies under TAR's Oil Spill Response Research (OSRR). Ties together stand-alone articles: Category:Oil_spill_remediation_technologies; unlike standalone articles, allows summary of comparative efficacy of options under different conditions and combinations.
      1. Mechanical containment: containment booms, skimmers, etc. -- studies: http://www.mms.gov/tarprojectcategories/mechanic.htm
      2. Chemical treating agents: dispersants, absorbents, etc. -- studies: http://www.mms.gov/tarprojectcategories/chemical.htm
      3. Burning in place -- studies: http://www.mms.gov/tarprojectcategories/insitu.htm
      4. Kevin Costner etc.
4. Human factors -- well-emphasized by quoted source as tantamount to technology. Well-cited as leading cause. Again, lots of studies: http://www.mms.gov/tarprojectcategories/humanfactors.htm. This is place to devote perhaps a paragraph each to studies relating to effects of
   1. Training
   2. Inspections
   3. Organizational factors
   4. Enforcement -- empirical studies of efficacy abound, linked in section above

After living with these sources for days now, that's the best I can do for a well-structured overview of the inter-related technologies of Offshore oil spill prevention and response in realistic context. It will certainly fit on one Wikipedia page if we avoid original research and stick to summary style. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 20:22, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

This is an excellent outline, and I now see the need for this article to have a broader focus than what I originally intended. I'll continue to write on the technical issues in my sandbox, and let you take the lead on this article. We can summarize here, and put the technical details, as Andy suggested, in existing articles on the relevant technologies.

My only remaining worry is that we don't lose a reader with a technical question like "How could the shear rams fail?", starting in a general-interest article like Deepwater Horizon, clicking on a link to this article, and getting lost in a discussion of regulatory agencies. The answer to that question need not be in this article, but it should be very clear that one more click to another article will provide an answer.

So I see this article now as a bridge to the technical information missing in the news. Neutrality with respect to the current crisis should be judged by how well it leads readers to a clear and concise understanding the relevant technologies, and avoids burying that information in a flood of other stuff.

--Dave (talk) 16:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

You've done quite a bit of work here and it's looking pretty good. I do have some questions/concerns:

• Are we going to limit this article to the U.S.? If so, we should get United States into the article title.
• Even if we are limiting this to the U.S., there may be an NPOV problem with putting too much emphasis on BAST. At the least, we might need to discuss controversy about the BAST standard.
• There could be an NPOV (undue weight) problem with using only government-approved research. I realize that the research on the government's website is much more accessible, but I think that there should be some effort to find research that's published elsewhere.

I don't think that these problems would be serious enough to cause someone to want to delete the article, but I do think we should still consider them. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 04:48, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the astute feedback, JT. I'll address each of these valid concerns in expanded article. If any need to be addressed ASAP, re: articles nominated for deletion discussion, please let me know ASAP. But it looks like the tide is shifting towards removing that deletion template from article.

1. Generic topic of oil spill prevention and response, specifically, offshore, is not at all limited to U.S., so no need to add US to article title. Google scholar & book search indicates that this exact phrase is in near universal use: UK, Norway, Russia, Japan, Australia, Korea, etc. It is a historic fact that the US-originated model and vocabulary for conceptualizing these issues (Title II of Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act amendments of 1978) is widely adopted and adapted internationally. That's another article I need to work up. In expanded article I'll weave together chronologically a few formative US & international incidents in History paragraph. Then follow in two-paragraph Regulations section with consequent reaction via international treaties, organizations & creation of non-US agencies, just before or after US-specific paragraph.
2. BAST is not to be over-emphasized, but serves as a placeholder to help ensure cited research on technologies meet a scientific/engineering standard of some sort: we don't want citations to be of low quality and biased journalistic digests when far better sources are readily available. Just setting a high standard by its mention; other standards and constraints on oil spill prevention and response studies, such as cost-benefit analysis, and Net Environmental Benefit Analysis (NEBA) may be mentioned in due course, ideally with simple links (though BAST and NEBA articles are also needed). Indeed, the evolution and controversies over these standards parallels the history of the entire discipline.
3. Re: "government-approved research" -- Government approval is not at all implied by government-contracted studies. There are some good studies by non-govt. funded or govt.-affiliated scholars I'll add. However, just like with overwhelming predominance of DARPA funding of artificial intelligence research for decades, so too with govt. funding of oil spill research for decades: most scholars like to get paid, and US govt., esp., has spent literally billions of dollars contracting consultants and scholars to conduct such oil spill research, so such studies represent by far the majority of high-quality research on some very specific topics that no one else has studied at all. I'm aware of the potential perception of bias, even when no demonstrable bias can be proven, and am working in independent studies as they present themselves. Industry-sponsored research certainly also deserves a place: I've already linked to American Petroleum Institute as a reminder. But besides govt. & industry, virtually no one pays for such research -- even professors need to generate their own grants for research, and not many NGOs sponsor such research. When I find some, I'll add them in.

Let me know if you think any of these concerns can't wait until expanded article. Thanks again -- Paulscrawl (talk) 17:44, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Paul on the quality of *government-sponsored* research. The screw-ups at MMS don't seem to have affected the excellent quality and objectivity of the reports they have accumulated over the last decade. Still, we should be careful when we cite these reports to include both the government agency name and the name of the company doing the research.--Dave (talk) 12:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Paul, I'm glad you've put some thought into these issues. I would like to respond on issues 2 and 3.

For issue 2, it's not just a matter of engineering studies for the technologies section, but controversy over the standard itself for the regulations section. Has there been any significant criticism of BAST, for example, from oil companies or environmental groups?

For issue 3, I used the term "government-approved" not just because of the funding, but because the government lists the results on their website. This gives the appearance of government approval. It would be good to cite this research using independent sources, such as peer-reviewed engineering journals, where possible. Also, peer-reviewed sources are considered higher quality by Wikipedia standards than non-peer-reviewed sources.

-- JTSchreiber (talk) 05:07, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I still have some major concerns around the scope of this article. The first sentance states :"Offshore oil spill prevention and response is the discipline of reducing the risks of blowouts and mitigating the effects of oil spills on the environment during offshore drilling operations." As far as I am aware there is no such discipline as this.

The article is focused on the contemporary USA response to an ongoing situation, and does not acknowledge that offshore drilling has been around for 60 years, and in that time many tens (or maybe hundreds) of offshore incidents and blowouts have occured. The investigation of these events have improved the safety and reduced the risk of financial losses in the offshore indsutry.

The objective of safely finding and producing oil from offshore regions without causing harm to people and the environment is called Offshore drilling and uses Offshore platforms, and Subsea (technology). There is inherent risk in this pursuit, and as the human race extends itself into new territories, incidents will happen which in hindsight can be prevented. Like most rapid human achievement this is a learning process, and there is a risk premium for exploring the boundaries of our knowledge. There are many notable failures in other more developed engineering provinces such as bridge building, tunneling, aviation, space exploration etc. which although tragic, form the rich history of our rapid progress in these areas. If humanity were too risk averse we would not have progressed so quickly; and probably in terms of overall long-term value we would be worse off.

I wonder if this article is really trying to define "Deepwater drilling risk management". The USA specific debate is already well presented in this established article United States offshore drilling debate. I think the Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill is a horrendous accident that draws huge global attention, but is probably just a stepping stone onto developing even more effective and safe deepwater drilling practices and technologies.

Sorry to be so challenging, but I think we are inventing something here that already exists elsewhere in Wiki subject areas, and I would rather put the effort into developing these further.(andyminicooper (talk) 21:30, 19 June 2010 (UTC))

JT & Andy, your concerns are addressed in the outline of this article's proposed development. Please carefully re-read the above discussion and have some faith. Patience, please -- David and I are working on all of these issues and addressing all expressed concerns in our sandboxes. Take a look. I'm developing a template to make transparent sponsored research, JT. David is planning to fold in his work into particular technical articles, per your suggestion, Andy. I'm working on history and internationalization. Peer-reviewed research, when available, will be used, JT. Andy, the discipline is quite well established by that very name: check the FIND box above: if anything, it should be renamed to the internationalized term in universal use: oil spill prevention and response. I could quite easily add a section on onshore and tanker issues without any trouble. Please relax and assume good faith until we have specific content to discuss.

• Google Books:
  • 9 on "offshore oil spill prevention"
  • 69 on "offshore oil spill response"
  • 376 on "oil spill prevention and response"

• Google Scholar:
  • 4 on "offshore oil spill prevention"
  • 56 on "offshore oil spill response"
  • 613 on "oil spill prevention and response"

Paulscrawl (talk) 03:42, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear that you will be making research sponsorship transparent. I will wait to see what you add to the article and comment then. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 05:20, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Andy, I appreciate your concern that we are overlapping other articles in the Energy category. Having a coherent structure to all the information in this area is certainly as important as the quality of the articles themselves. I see where we fit in as Energy -> Oil -> Offshore oil spill prevention and response -> various subtopics such as Blowout_preventer.

I see plenty of opportunity here to offload some of the technical content originally planned for this article, but I don't see that any of the articles you have suggested can cover our "top level" subject adequately. When a person comes to Wikipedia with a question in mind "Can offshore oil be made safe for our environment?", we don't want them getting lost with bits and pieces of the relevant information being widely scattered. If we do this right, we can reduce to one hour of reading what now takes hundreds of hours of search and careful study.

I'll be happy to help develop some of these other articles. Certainly anything that can be summarized here and detailed elsewhere will help keep this article short.

Blowout_preventer could be home for a much more thorough discussion of this one technology. We need better drawings in this article. Pretty pictures from a sales brochure just don't help in understanding how these things work. You could help with finding these drawings. I've collected a few at User:Macquigg/Sandbox/Blowout_preventer. The cross-section of the shear ram shows the level of detail we need. The diagram of the BOP stack is not enough. The machine drawing at http://www.energy.gov/open/documents/2.1_Item_5_BOP_Dwg_07_Jun_1800_NL.pdf has too much detail on externals and not enough on internals. The photos are near useless.

United States offshore drilling debate has a section on the risk of oil spills, but this is very superficial. Also, as you say, we want to avoid being US centric.

Offshore drilling is focused on the discovery and development of oil and gas resources, not oil spills. There is a section titled Challenges, where we might add a few statements about prevention and response, but again, there is just not enough room in an article this broad. By the way, that aricle is clearly non-neutral. The one paragraph they have about oil spills makes some astonishing statements about the pollution coming from normal rig operations, and is sourced by a webpage from the Committee Against Oil Exploration.

Offshore platform is focused on the various types of platforms, nice as far as it goes, but we need an encylcopedia-quality drawing showing the various components of a floating rig related to blowouts and spills (riser, SBOP, diverter, etc.).

Subsea (technology) is focused on equipment, technology, and methods employed in marine biology, undersea geology, offshore oil and gas developments and offshore wind power industries. Again, too broad a subject to host our material.

None of these articles cover our subject in enough depth to help readers with the question "Can offshore drilling be made safe?" This is an important topic, independent of USA (although current interest is high in the USA, and using the Deepwater Horizon as a specific example should be OK). If we do a good job on this article, we will elevate the level of discussion, and perhaps avoid bad decisions based on myth and misinformation.

--Dave (talk) 19:45, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Dave, Paul - Good comprehensive responses. The answer to the question "Can offshore drilling be made safe?" is of course, "How safe is safe enough ?". I think I know what you are driving at, and offer the two following wikis as analogies from other industries :- Automobile safety, Nuclear safety. I think that these articles could be used to help focus this offshore spill article. You are focusing on Offshore environmental spill risk rather than human safety, but I think the scopes are similar. The scope should also be broadened from drilling to drilling and production operations as there are many spills during the production phase like Piper Alpha. I have taken the first paragraph from the automobile safety wiki and adapted for the offshore industry.......... Offshore spill prevention and response is the study and practice of offshore facility design, construction, and operation to minimize the occurrence and consequences of offshore oil spill accidents. Improvements in offshore facility designs and operation have steadily reduced the frequency rate of oil well blowouts, and offshore spills. Nevertheless, the global increase in offshore developments means that the gross frequency is still significant (ref to be found). With developments in increasing water depths and closer to sensitive coastal regions, the environmental consequences and financial costs of cleaning up an oil release can be tens of billions of dollars. Possible sections

• History of Offshore Oil Spill Prevention and Response
• Regulatory regimes / Organisations
• Risk Based Approach / Safety Case Approach post Piper Alpha
• Active and Passive Control Mechanisms
• Failure modes / failure types
• Incident response
• Insurance and consequential losses
• Environmental impact

I would suggest that the scope would stay away from the actual description of the equipment and processes for drilling and production which are found elsewhere, and focus on the regional development strategy, vicinity of developments, offshore development types, safety strategies, control mechanisms, regulations, etc. that control and influence the risk management and consequences. What do you think about further development along these lines ? Best regards, (andyminicooper (talk) 22:34, 20 June 2010 (UTC))

That is much more helpful, Andy, thanks. Two quick thoughts:

1. As auto safety has virtually no international concerns other than those applicable to car manufacturers and roadway signage (though article's narrow definition of "auto safety" as meaning auto accident prevention studies entirely ignores the overwhelmingly more significant auto safety issues of car-caused airborne pollutants), I think the nuclear safety article a more applicable analogy for oil spill prevention and response article, likewise a truly international, highly regulated, and multidisciplinary concern by its very nature. Failure modes is a nice section title for summary treatment of most common causes of oil spills from all sources. Perhaps David could work with that as a way of neatly prioritizing and summarizing his work for offshore rig device-specific articles; I think I might be able to do so for the spill containment and environmental remediation aspects I'm working on. Hazards and Risk assessment are also thought-provoking section titles that could possibly be incorporated for discussion of those changing standards of practice, from cost-benefit analysis to Net Environmental Benefit Assessment to Best And Safest Technologies, and other protocols. I'll examine that nuclear article most carefully and see how it might be adapted to the quite uniform international and national categories and vocabularies for conceptualizing, analyzing, and regulating oil spill prevention and response activities. The ICS model is a good example of field-specific vocabulary and practice and would make a good section. I'm a stickler for precise vocabulary and safety is not a generic concept or useful article title (though perhaps a candidate for a redirect): every regulated field necessarily defines safety uniquely and this field has been well defined for over 40 years: keeping a precise title helps ensure against mixing in topics best left to United States offshore drilling debate, and those brave enough to edit it.
2. As 75 to 85 percent of man-generated oil in the sea is estimated to come from inland sources, I firmly believe focus should be aligned with the international covenants that address the issues concerning not only offshore facilities, but the truly major sources of man-made oceanic oil pollution as well: inland leaks and dumping leaching into the ocean, tanker spills, and offshore leaks and dumping, particularly as these latter sources of oil in the sea were historically the first to be regulated by international covenants and national laws.

Let me sleep on it -- I have a lot of research in a state of digestion. I'll think more about what I might do to adapt article outline after more time for reflection and analysis. Thanks again for being constructive. David, what do you think? How short could your summary analyses of failure modes for various devices be made while still keeping article self-sufficient for those asking: can offshore drilling and production operations be made safe? Paulscrawl (talk) 02:47, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Andy, Paul - Take a look at the blowout preventer section of User:Macquigg/Sandbox/Offshore_oil_spill_prevention for my suggestion on the level of detail we should include in the technology sections of this main article. This was originally quite a bit longer, but I've moved the parts that seem appropriate for the general article on Blowout_preventer to User:Macquigg/Sandbox/Blowout_preventer.

My objective is be to provide enough explanation that readers will understand the most important technical issues relating to oil spill prevention, and have links to much more detail if they really want to understand more about any one item like blowout preventers. Thus, of all the components in a drilling operation, I've chosen the blowout preventer and well casing, and of all the parts in a blowout preventer, I've chosen the shear rams. Then instead of a general discussion of shear rams, I've laser focused on the most likely cause of failure.

There may be one or two other components we want to include, perhaps the diverter, which I understand is supposed to catch the blowout gases and direct them away from the drilling platform. That relates more to crew safety, but its relevance here is that it may be critical to avoid sinking a platform, uncontrolled damage to the riser and BOP, and the cascade of events we see now in the Gulf. I'm having trouble finding a good drawing of the diverter.

Andy, I like your suggestion of making the topic something like Nuclear safety, but worry that there may be a boatload of issues there also to dilute the focus of the article we want to write. It looks like we will never have a perfect title, so I don't have a strong feeling we should change what we have. Maybe we should hold this in reserve, in case what we are writing now gets too long, and we need to split regulatory issues from technical issues. I don't have much to contribute on the regulatory issues.

Your lead paragraph looks good. It certainly holds the reader's attention better than what we have now. The technical parts could fit in the sections on control mechanisms and failure modes.

Paul, I worry that including all the other sources of oil pollution may dilute our focus too much. Perhaps we could write a separate article on oil pollution, and link to it here.

--Dave (talk) 17:39, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I still find that the scope of this article as defined in the opening paragraph does not make much sense. In the current article the term 'Offshore Oil Spill Prevention and Response' is being focussed on a contemporary GoM oil well blowout and spill that is in the daily public news. If you read through the various references and searches on this term, then the article should be opened up to include oil transportation spills, pipeline spills, and operational oil platform spills (non-drilling activity). The article needs to take a broader perspective to meet the definition of the wiki title used. I have suggested a change to the introduction to cover a range of activities that are considered as offshore related. (andyminicooper (talk) 22:11, 10 July 2010 (UTC))

Encourage sandboxing

Offshore oil spill prevention is a huge topic. To keep the edits and discussions manageable, we suggest that users write rough drafts in their sandboxes, and link here.--Dave (talk) 22:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Macquigg/Sandbox/Offshore oil spill prevention

Neutrality

I strongly support NPOV, but the problem is one person's neutrality seems to be another person's bias. Let's keep this section near the top for discussions of neutrality.

MMS studies

"Studies done for the Minerals Management Service have questioned the reliability of shear rams." This implies that their is doubt about the result. I think a more neutral statement would be
"Studies done for the Minerals Management Service have demonstrated the unreliability of shear rams." If you read the reports, I think you will agree they did more than just raise a question. Taking the two studies together, I would say "proven" would be even more appropriate.
--Dave (talk) 20:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll start from your last argument and work backwords:

* If I read the reports, I'll agree? Whether I agree or not is completely irrelevant per NPOV, WP:OR and WP:V. It is not the job of Wikipedia editors to draw our own conclusions and present those in articles. I also think that you are confusing my statements about what's needed to make the article comply with NPOV, etc. with what my personal opinions are on the subject matter. On Wikipedia, I often end up arguing with editors who have similar opinions to my own. They want to put those opinions in articles, and I tell them not to do that.

* "Studies done for the Minerals Management Service have demonstrated the unreliability of shear rams." In order for "demonstrated" to be an acceptable wording on Wikipedia, (1) that statement would have to represent the consensus of experts, which in this case would probably mean drilling technology researchers, and (2) the consensus would have to be verified with a reliable source, and that source cannot be the reports themselves or the MMS.

Also, the wording "demonstrated the unreliability" has an additional problem. It assumes a certain answer to the question: "How reliable is reliable enough?" The answer to that question will be an opinion, not a fact. The wording "questioned the reliability" is more flexibile in accomodating different opionions about acceptable levels of reliability.

Finally, even the current wording can be considered biased in favor of the MMS reports, because no alternative points of view are presented. Presumably, the manufacturers of the shear rams do not agree that their products are unreliable, yet their opinion is not documented here. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 04:56, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, I see what you are concerned about. The wording I proposed might imply that there was something wrong with the design of the rams. Maybe we could say "have demonstrated the unreliability of shear rams when used at subsea depths beyond their ratings." The rest of the paragraph makes things clear. I'm OK either way. --Dave (talk) 10:00, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

After thinking about it some more, I think we still have a problem with "questioning" the reliability of shear rams. I've added "in deepwater drilling" to make it more clear that the failures are not in the design of the rams, but in their use under conditions beyond their ratings. I still think "questioned" is too weak, but I'm OK with it as long as we don't water down the rest of the paragraph. 50% chance of failure is certainly "unreliable", even without a verifiable source. This is a life safety system, like airbags in a car. As for a consensus of experts on what is "reliable", I think if we did a survey of the guys who operate these drilling rigs, they would want no more than one in a thousand chance of failure if they ever have to hit that Big Red Button. --Dave (talk) 02:06, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, let's stick with the current wording. As far as the 50% chance of failure, the current paragraph on the MMS studies says that the shear rams all sheared the pipes, but some had to be pushed past their design specifications to do so. I would not call that a 50% chance of failure. As far as human safety is concerned, I see nothing in Wikipedia's policies that adjusts the rules when safety is on the line, even if it's my own safety. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 04:13, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Missing features in BOP design

"In addition to insufficient ram pressure, several features are missing from current BOP designs, features that could make them more safe for deepwater use.[by whom?][12]"
I was trying to be careful here, and not push my opinion that these features *should* be included in future designs. The reader can draw their own conclusions from this simple statement of fact, and their own evaluation of costs.
--Dave (talk) 20:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad that you avoided using the word "should", but there's more to NPOV than that. See the WP:ASSERT and WP:UNDUE sections in NPOV. Also, the original research policy (WP:OR) needs to be followed.

In order for potential BOP features to be listed here with the statement that they may improve safety, the text needs to say who advocates the feature for improving safety. The person (or organization) who advocates the feature needs to have expertise in the field. The main exception for not naming a person or organization would be if there is a consensus among experts that the feature would improve safety. Either way, the statement needs to be backed up by a reliable source. Here is a made-up example of what an appropriate statement would look like:

Joe Lingenberg, professor of mechanical engineering at the University of California, Los Angeles, states that the use of planned breakage points would improve the safety of BOPs. As an example, he suggests having these breakage points to relieve the excess forces from a falling riser pipe.[37]

Ideas you got from other engineers in e-mails, discussion groups, etc. are not admissable in Wikipedia articles, unless those ideas can be attributed to an expert or represent the consensus of experts. Ideas you came up with yourself are not admissable, even if they represent the straightforward application of general engineering principles to deepwater drilling. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 05:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

JT, I agree with the WP policies you cited, and I can see that application of these policies has produced a huge improvement since I last participated in Wikipedia. These are very well written, and even deal with the worry I had that authors can be driven off by too much insistence on sourcing everything. The section Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ addresses this issue very well: "What we mean is that when it is a fact (a piece of information that which there is no serious dispute) it can be asserted without simon-says inline-text phrasing".

So the question we should ask might be: Is there any serious dispute that the features missing from current BOP designs "could make them more safe for deepwater use". Note that this is not saying anything about cost, delay, or other factors that will need to go into an actual decision to implement these features. It is just saying something that even a non-engineer can recognize as true.

I don't have a source for this statement. Perhaps we could find something in an Introduction to Engineering text, where we might find discussions about redundancy in design, but the examples would be unrelated to BOP design, so then the objection might be, we are "synthesizing" beyond what is in the source.

Perhaps we can re-word the statement to avoid whatever POV you see it having. It really isn't my intention to advocate anything here. We just need to provide the basic understanding of the technology relevant to the topic of the article.

I like the statement in WP:ORIGINAL - "Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are appropriate on any given occasion is a matter of common sense and good editorial judgment..."

--Dave (talk) 18:04, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I have one further suggestion to make this section completely neutral, and not dependent on my own observations. Rather than eliminate any feature for which we can't find a source that "advocates" it, let's invite authors to *add* to the list anything that will pass a common-sense evaluation of "could make the design safer". There are many features that *could* make BOP designs safer. I have included only the ones that are obvious from a superficial study of current designs. I have not looked beyond the references I cite, or looked at any drawings of the internals. I have no special expertise in this field.

--Dave (talk) 22:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Dave, sorry, but I disagree with your interpretation of the material you have quoted. First, I think you are taking the quote from WP:ORIGINAL out of context. It's on the section that deals with the choice of source type (primary, secondary or tertiary), so the quote is talking about which source type to use, not whether to use a source. Also, that quote needs to be interpretted within the context of the second paragraph of WP:ORIGINAL:

This means that all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable published source, even if not actually attributed. The sourcing policy, Verifiability, says a source must be provided for all quotations, and for anything challenged or likely to be challenged—but a source must exist even for material that is never challenged. "Paris is the capital of France" needs no source because no one is likely to object to it, but we know that sources for that sentence exist. If no source exists for something you want to add to Wikipedia, it is what we call original research. To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the material as presented.

Any proposed BOP feature needs to be attributable in order to be in the article. If there is no reliable source, the feature is not attributable.

Second, I think that you are misinterpretting the quote from Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ. I think the quote means that "simon-says inline-text phrasing" is not needed for widely known, well-established statements like "Paris is the capital of France". There is no need to attribute this to a geography expert, since this is the consensus of such experts. In fact, attributing this to one expert could be misleading, implying that there is no consensus.

You also did not mention WP:UNDUE. This section in NPOV says, among other things, that the amount of Wikipedia article text devoted to an idea needs to be proportional to the idea's prominence in reliable sources. An idea that is widely mentioned in reliable sources gets the most text while an occasionally mentioned idea gets much less text, and so an idea unmentioned in reliable sources gets no text in the Wikipedia article.

Without reliable sources, I don't see a way to salvage the existing paragraph. Instead, I did some searching and found the following reliable sources with ideas for improving BOP reliability:

* http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/21/us/21blowout.html?_r=1

* http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/06/21/us/20100621-bop.html

While engineering sources would be preferred for this type of thing, general news source are still acceptable, and The New York Times is prestigious among general news sources. I suggest working with these types of articles to rebuild the reliability improvement discussion from scratch. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 04:49, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Excellent article. Thanks for digging this up. I'll re-write the paragraph to use this article as its source. Maybe in a few months we'll have a good review article in an engineering journal. Then we can cite that instead. I still disagree with the need to source statements when there is no serious dispute, but we can put off that question until later. You are right, the missing features I found in a superficial review were unduly weighted. The examples in the NYT article may also be unduly weighted. We'll probably have to wait for that engineering article to get the final, properly-weighted list of improvements needed.

One very important item discussed in the NYT article is the need for two shear rams. My source (the BP drawing appearing at http://www.energy.gov/open/oilspilldata.htm) is apparently wrong. The BP drawing clearly shows two shear rams. Makes me wonder if Dr. Chu is really paying attention.

--Dave (talk) 19:36, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome for the NYT article. The article talks about the need for two blind shear rams and the drawing from the MMS site shows only one blind shear ram, with the other shear ram being of a different type. These two sources might not contradict each other. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 05:20, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

They are both shear rams according to the drawing on the DOE site. The word "blind" just means no circular cutout to fit around a drill pipe (i.e. a shear ram). http://www.glossary.oilfield.slb.com/search.cfm. Blind ram one of those uninformative pieces of industry jargon I prefer to avoid. Much better for an encyclopedia article (or a newspaper article) to simply say "shear ram" or "pipe ram". --Dave (talk) 15:48, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Calling for help

I am an electrical engineer with no experience in well drilling, but I am starting this article due to my frustration at the lack of any technical discussion in the news or even in the engineering forums I regularly visit. It seems as if the folks who know the most want to shut down these discussions, perhaps to avoid embarrassment over the current crisis in the Gulf. I think this reaction is a mistake, and will only hurt the industry even more when the truth comes out.

Most of what needs to be done is well-established technology and design principles that any Wikipedia reader can understand. Oil industry experts who are willing to contribute will be very much appreciated, especially to correct errors, add links to verifiable sources, or suggest alternative technologies.

--Dave (talk) 01:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

There are a number of issues that are mixed up here;

• how to safely drill and produce deepwater wells;
• how to manage a deepwater well blowout;
• and how to capture and clean up hydrocarbons leaking from a deepwater well.

I don't think this article provides any further clarity on the issues on the Macondo well in the Gulf of Mexico. I have been working on a number of wiki articles over the last year that cover some of these aspects. I acknowledge that the areas of offshore deepwater drilling and deepwater well control / blowout response are quite poor at present. I suggest however that it would be better to continue to develop these other existing articles to help clarify these specialist areas. I will try and provide some responses to you questions below. Keep up the work on trying to work out what's happening; it's a fascinating business (andyminicooper (talk) 21:01, 13 June 2010 (UTC))

Hey Andy, good to see your participation in this article. I appreciate the links you gave me. There is a huge volume of source material available. The challenge now is to digest it into an article that will be not overwhelming in scope or depth for an average college student with an interest in this technology. The original scope was too broad. I would be happy to leave the second and third issues you list for another article. We can also offload some of the detail to existing articles, as you suggest. I still see the need for a two or three page summary here, however. I keep thinking of the CNN reporter who will never read a book on this subject, or even a collection of articles, but still would benefit from some basic understanding of the relevant technologies. --Dave (talk) 19:47, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Questions to be answered

Here are some of the questions that have frustrated me over the last few weeks. I am hoping this article will answer these questions. Clear diagrams of the existing equipment would help.
1) Why can't they remove the broken BOP and install a new one?
2) Why can't they drive that cutoff valve with external hydraulic pressure?
3) Why can't they remove the broken riser pipe, and attach a new one at the flange on top of the BOP?
4) Why can't the top hat have a seal that clamps around the flange on top of the BOP, providing both mechanical strength and a fluid seal?
5) Why can't they shut off the vents on the top hat, and eliminate that source of leakage? The explanation in the news (worry about water getting in) makes no sense. If there is positive pressure in the top hat, shutting those valves will only increase the pressure, and make it less likely for water to get in.
6) Why can't they force mud down the drill pipe, and do a bottom kill without waiting for the relief wells?
7) Why can't they collect all the oil as soon as it reaches the surface? Is the problem due to dispersants causing the oil to remain below the surface?
8) What is the maximum pressure that can occur in a wellhead, and how does the lifting force compare with the strength of the casing and cement?
--Dave (talk) 16:33, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I just found an answer to Question 4. It's in the works!! Why didn't they do this on day one? http://www.energy.gov/open/documents/1.3_Item_2_Top_Hat_4_03_JUN_1130.pdf
--Dave (talk) 19:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

This does raise another question, however. Why don't they have some locking mechanism that grabs the bottom edge of the wellhead flange? It looks like this new top hat will pop off every time there is a small kick in the gas pressure. --Dave (talk) 16:01, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

My simple point of view is taken from a medical golden rule that I have heard - 'Do no harm'. This may mean that it is better to stand back or to take peripheral actions to ameliorate the situation rather than dive in with the risk of making the situation worse. To your questions 1 and 3, I think that there is significant risk that the removal of the BOP or LMRP may result in an increased flow of oil and may prevent further intervention. The question on why the BOP does not cut the pipe / casing in the BOP is a BIG issues. These pieces of equipment are very powerful, and to have such a major failure is an issue that may feature high on the list of the investigation. Collecting oil from this depth is difficult due to the low temperature, expansion-cooling of gas, and the creation of hydrate solids which will block the equipment. It may be better to collect a goo percentage of the oil in a steady system than try to collect a higher percentage and have difficulty in maintaining a stable system and therefore failing to collect oil relably. Hope this helps some. (andyminicooper (talk) 21:10, 13 June 2010 (UTC))

Yes, definitely helpful, but I still don't understand. How could closing the vents on the top hat cause instability? If there isn't a short answer, feel free to respond on my user talk page. We're supposed to limit the discussion here to just editorial issues. --Dave (talk) 20:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Self-reference

"This article reviews" seems like an odd phrase to have in an encyclopedia article. I think the lead section should summarize the subject as described in the rest of the article (rather than describing the article itself). I can't think of a good way to re-word at the moment. Suggestions? Thundermaker (talk) 15:11, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Good point. We have an About template to establish the scope of the article. We don't need to repeat ourselves in the first paragraph. The first paragraph is very short, since the article itself is just an outline at this stage. When it gets to two or three pages, we can write a two or three paragraph intro. --Dave (talk) 20:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Stub status as immediate goal; no original research, continue Discussion here

Per prior discussion on articles nominated for deletion page, which constructive discussion can now be carried on here: realistic immediate goal is to refactor into WP:IDEALSTUB using WP:CREATE guidelines: "The very first thing you should write in a new article is a list of the source(s) for the information in it. "

I'll paste a few useful-looking but undigested and unformatted external links in References section: they can be worked into Notes section as they are used as inline refs in article body.

Another #1 priority is making a simple and neutral definition as lead.

And then I would recommend thinking hard about outline structure as container for re-factored & inline referenced content.

Also, however tempting, we must be very careful to avoid original research or novel synthesis -- there should be good secondary sources (news, Google Scholar search, other third-party analyses, etc.) to use for refs, and not merely or exclusively refs to primary, that is, govt. or industry docs. I've added FIND template to top of this Discussion page to help facilitate searches for such. Also helpful for CC-licensed images that may freely be used in WP. See:

"Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources, though primary sources are permitted if used carefully. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." WP:ORIGINAL (emphasis added - Paul)

Note: all current content is backed up in Dave's (article creator and champion) sandbox, so let's be bold, keep the Discussion page in sync and at least as active as the article's development, and topically organized with well-named Section headers, so we can together make some rapid progress. Paulscrawl (talk) 18:24, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Good suggestions, Paul. As for the list of sources, that's basically what I'm doing with the Background section. We still need more on the specifics of each technology we will include in the Solutions section. I don't have a good feel yet for the lead paragraphs. That will be easier once we agree on what technologies to include. I had the start of an outline, I thought, with the section headings and the numbered items in the Solutions section. Maybe someone else can suggest an outline. I will try to avoid anything that appears to be original thought. I guess I need a source for my statement that engineering involves more than just technical issues. It's been too long since I've been in Engineering 101. Yes, be bold. Change whatever you want to change on this article. I will only insist that we follow Einstein's principle - Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler. --Dave (talk) 21:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Technology necessarily includes human factors of risk assessment, training, & human error; legal, political, economic, and social sanctions re: safety

Henry Petroski taught us all that "to engineer is human." It would be quite naive to focus solely on machinery, even if this article is delimited to technological methods and failure analysis: machines are only one small part of any technological system. All technologies necessarily include people and their goals. Let's not define technology so narrowly that we forget the invaluable lessons we supposedly learned decades ago in the detailed analyses of Three Mile Island, the Chernobyl disaster, and the Challenger explosion. Let us not forget them now.

Messy or not, people, as in human goals and errors, are a huge part of any of the technologies of oil spill prevention and remediation: some human being must operate these machines, and some human being must decide how to do so, and some human being must decide, based on several constraints, when not to do so.

I couldn't have said it better. Although the article should focus on technologies (or it will become a book), we should at least mention the non-technical factors that must be considered in any engineering solution to the oil spill problem. We get deeply involved in these non-technical factors when we are designing a system that may run carefree for decades, then fail catastrophically because people get complacent. For such a system to succeed, the design must include "mechanisms" that will ensure proper operations and oversight, in spite of a decade or more of opposition to what some think are unnecessary expenses. An engineer may have to chose, for example, whether to use a more expensive technology that works a little better, or one that is so inexpensive that there is no temptation to eliminate it twenty years from now. --Dave (talk) 21:47, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Some non-mechanical aspects of these oil spill prevention technologies worthy of inclusion in this article -- not to be pawned off to another "soft" article -- involve:

1. legal
2. political
3. economic, and
4. social

constraints, rewards, and sanctions regarding safety.

Risk assessment is a huge part of the technology of offshore oil spill prevention. This article can not ignore any of these major human factors in the technological complex. Expand the outline towards a holistic analysis: the secondary sources will certainly back up this precis.

A brief intro to the engineering economics that determine risk assessments that may abet or deter oil spills, see Mark Cohen, Deterring Oil Spills -- Paulscrawl (talk) 04:30, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Article perspective needs to change per NPOV/OR/NOTESSAY

The basic perspective of this article seems to be that there's a problem with offshore drilling that needs to be fixed and we're going to try to come up with a solution. I think this perspective is a big part of the reason why editors are voting to delete the article.

First, the above perspective avoids at least two important points of view. One of these views is that offshore drilling may not need to be "fixed" by new standards. People with this point of view may argue that current standards are adequate if companies follow them and regulators properly enforce them. Another important and very different point of view is that offshore drilling is inherently dangerous, so that no fix will be good enough. This article does nothing to accomodate these points of view, and as such, it fails NPOV.

Second, the article provides a set of criteria that proposed designs should meet. Even if these are commonly taught engineering principles, it will be considered original research for a Wikipedia article to evaluate all proposals this way, unless some reliable source has already published such an evaluation. You don't have to consider yourself a researcher to produce what Wikipedia calls original research.

Third, this article provides personal opinions and commentary, such as "Why hasn't this been fixed?" Again, maybe nothing needs to be fixed. Maybe the study claiming a problem was actually a flawed study.

I think that the combination of these issues contributes to the argument that this article is too much like an essay. These types of issues needs to be addressed promptly if this article is to be saved from deletion. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 04:45, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I think we can achieve notability, NPOV, and lockout of original research by focusing on federal mandates for offshore oil prevention and response. Rename article as such: add "and response" -- it's part of the law. US-centric by necessity for this explication of US federal rules. (Internationalization will follow). Tech discussion will find it place in that explication and in links to specialized and expanded WP articles. e.g. BOP. This addresses your first concern: some like status quo, some oppose all offshore drilling (link to WP article on controversies in template). Second concern will be addressed in matter-of-fact explication from secondary and select primary sources (govt.-commissioned third-party studies) re: evaluations of current rules and alternatives. Weeding out verbiage re: your third concern; that's all in Dave's sandbox now. I can't think of another way to salvage, but this could work. Paulscrawl (talk) 21:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Paulscrawl and Thundermaker, that's some really good work on revamping the lead section! That part reads like a Wikipedia article now. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 02:56, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh crap I edit-conflicted

Paul, I inadvertently stomped on your new lead. I was doing the same thing. I will attempt to merge. Thundermaker (talk) 21:11, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

That's cool Paulscrawl (talk) 21:11, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Nice lead -- carry on. Paulscrawl (talk) 21:21, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Basic focus on technology

Paul, I'm worried that you are putting in too much stuff about law and politics and all these U.S. Federal agencies, and crowding out the technical content of the article. Each of these agencies deserves an article by itself, but unless we can relate the discussion to the key question posed in the intro, I would leave it out. Perhaps we need two articles, one focused on technology and another one, closely related, on the legal and political problems that any technical solution must consider. --Dave (talk) 22:34, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Tech can and will be worked in: stub status is #1 priority. The relevant agencies are already linked to their articles and thus that content need not be duplicated. But they are important for article structure, re: NPOV. Patience. Paulscrawl (talk) 05:21, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm starting to wonder if the focus on technology, in and of itself, may be considered non-neutral. From the left, we may hear - Delete this article. No technical solution is possible. Discussion of technical fixes will only prolong the environmental destruction. From the right, we may hear - Delete this article. Your readers can't understand the true difficulty of this technology, and by publishing simple solutions, all you do is make it more difficult for the oil companies to do their job. I think the ideal article will keep equal distance from either side, explain the technologies in terms a simple as possible (but no simpler), and let readers draw their own conclusions. --Dave (talk) 22:59, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Law and tech belong together; the one balances the other for NPOV: it will work out fine. Paulscrawl (talk) 05:21, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

T minus 2 days and counting

On the 10th, Paulscrawl asked for a week to revamp the article and then to re-assess whether it should be deleted. It will be the 17th in a couple days, so there's not much time left to complete the revamping. I suggest the following actions:

(1) Dig up some reliable sources for the lead (introduction) section.  Done for now, could be improved, but will serve. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 04:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

(2) Delete the table of contents and background section. We can bring some of this material back later after the vote on deletion and after the material has been brought up to Wikipedia standards.  Done Paulscrawl (talk) 03:36, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that the combination of these two steps should allow the article to survive as a stub, rather than having to go through article deletion and re-creation. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 03:23, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'm done. Thanks for suggestions and encouragement. I think we have a viable stub now. Paulscrawl (talk) 05:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Good work, Paul. It's no longer an essay. It doesn't pose questions and then answer them, it doesn't have a thesis, the reader can come and gather info to answer his own questions.

Thanks. We have a hint of an outline in the first paragraph. "prevention, detection, monitoring, containment, and shutdown". I'm not sure how monitoring got in there, it seems redundant with detection. You monitor for the purpose of detecting leaks. That can be fixed later, using whichever word is more common in our sources. Thundermaker (talk) 17:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Your generic opening definition helped. But a fine distinction is not worth losing: detection is a discrete event; monitoring is a continuous process. Webster's Collegiate 11th has it right. Forgive my logophilia. The threshold required for detection is often far lower than the threshold required for monitoring rate of change: the faintest smell of oil, or the sight of a solitary tarball on a beach, is far easier to detect than it is to monitor the rate of change in the quantity of oil in parts per trillion of water in some area of the Gulf of Mexico. You see this distinction in some zero tolerance EPA regulations.

But all these words -- "prevention, detection, monitoring, containment, and shutdown" -- with the obvious exception of "prevention," speak to offshore oil spill response not offshore oil spill prevention.

What is common in our reliable sources is the simultaneous concern with offshore oil spill prevention, offshore oil spill preparedness, and offshore oil spill response. The legal mandates are for all three as necessary prerequisites to the activity of offshore drilling. Most often shortened to prevention and response. Look at the cited references. JTSchreiber had asked to rename the article Offshore oil spill prevention and response (though Thundermaker suggested adding "and response" first, in articles for deletion discussion) and I heartily concur -- it would avoid a great deal of undesirable duplication and loss of necessary context, as the same history, regulations, and human factors apply to both: only the technologies differ. We have lots of standalone articles on those, as Andyminicooper acknowledged. For the level of detail an overview article should aspire to, both prevention and response can be contained on this one page. And it aligns closely with our sources, not to mention current curiosities of likely readers: cause and effect. Continued in Outline section below. Sorry, Dave, I think this discussion belongs here, not my sandbox Paulscrawl (talk) 19:36, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome for the suggestions and encouragement. I agree that this looks like a viable stub now, and the addition of a photo unique to this article is a nice touch. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 04:28, 16 June 2010 (UTC)