Talk:BP/Archive 20

Corexit
Here is most of the Corexit story. It is a pre-draft draft that needs a lot of work. None of this is in my own words, but I wanted to get this out of my files and onto this page in case someone wanted to help build this section, which probably fits better under the "Environmental record" or perhaps "Safety and health violations" than under the Gulf spill, since we are only allotted 2 paragraphs.  petrarchan47  t  c   23:50, 4 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Easy ways to brush up on the Corexit story (with focus on the recent GAP report and Newsweek investigation):
 * Video: Rachael Maddow show on Newsweek investigation showing BP coverup
 * Video: "Inside Story" on BP's use of Corexit to "clean up" Gulf oil blowout disaster

'''BP's use of COREXIT during the DWH oil spill ''' Conclusions from the report strongly suggest that the dispersant Corexit was widely applied in the aftermath of the Deepwater Horizon explosion because it caused the false impression that the oil disappeared. In reality, the oil/Corexit mixture became less visible, yet much more toxic than the oil alone. Nonetheless, indications are that both BP and the government were pleased with what Corexit accomplished.[16]

EPA whistleblower Hugh Kaufman: "EPA....is taking the position that they really don’t know how dangerous Corexit is, even though if you read the label, it tells you how dangerous it is. And, for example, in the Exxon Valdez case, people who worked with dispersants, most of them are dead now. The average death age is around fifty. It’s very dangerous, and it’s an economic — it’s an economic protector of BP, not an environmental protector of the public."[21]

From the GAP report, "evidence suggests that the cleanup effort has been more destructive to human health and the environment than the spill itself."[15]

BP lied about the size of the oil disaster and the danger posed to its workers, the public and the environment.[1] Lying to Congress about the amount of oil was one of 14felonies to which BP pleaded guilty last year in a legal settlement with US DOJ, which included a 4.5 Billion fine, the largest ever levied against a corp in the US. BP hid the amount of oil from cameras by using oil dispersant Corexit. BP lied about how safe Corexit was for workers, residents and the environment. An anonymous whistle-blower provided evidence revealed in a Newsweek investigation that BP was warned in advance about the safety risks of Corexit.[2] // whistleblowers revealed to the independent Government Accountability Project (GAP) that Nalco had given elaborate instructions to BP about using Corexit and avoiding contact with human clean-up workers — instructions that were clearly ignored during the spring of 2010.[15]

BP used at least 1.84 million gallons, the largest use of such chemicals in U.S. history.[9] BP sprayed Corexit directly at the wellhead spewing oil from the bottom of the gulf, even though no one had ever tried spraying it below the water's surface before. BP also used more of the dispersant than had been used in any previous oil spill, 1.8 million gallons, to try to break up the oil.[19] 58% was sprayed from planes, sometimes hitting cleanup workers in the face. Workers were denied safety gear and (their jobs threatened for wearing respirators)[4][5]. Soon after the Deepwater explosion, BP stockpiled 1/3rd of the world's supply of Corexit[6]

In May 2010, the EPA told BP to identify less toxic alternatives from a list of government-approved dispersants. If BP could not identify an alternative, it had to offer concrete reasons why not. The company replied that less-toxic dispersants were not available in the quantities needed.[7] BP continued spraying Corexit on the Gulf, at an average ratio of one gallon per 91 gallons of oil, into the summer of 2010.[8]

After the spill, a study revealed that oil mixed with Corexit is 52 times more toxic than oil alone.[3] Wilma Subra, a chemist whose work on environmental pollution had won her a “genius grant” from the MacArthur Foundation, told state and federal authorities that she was especially concerned about how dangerous the mixture of crude and Corexit was: “The short-term health symptoms include acute respiratory problems, skin rashes, cardiovascular impacts, gastrointestinal impacts, and short-term loss of memory,” she told GAP investigators. “Long-term impacts include cancer, decreased lung function, liver damage, and kidney damage.”[1][2] In a survey of health impacts for people along the coast, Orr found The most common ailments were headaches (87 percent of respondents), dizziness and cough (72 percent), fatigue and eye-nose-and-throat irritation (63 percent), followed by nausea, diarrhea, confusion and depression.[8]

Environmental health consultant Wilma Subra, who evaluated the survey data, said oil and dispersant had aerosolized and travelled up to 100 miles inland, potentially exposing tens of thousands of people to the hairspray-like mist. “Now we are seeing the reproductive effects,” Subra said, including high rates of miscarriages, preemies, infant respiratory problems, and neurodevelopmental disorders like autism.

“The workers that BP hired should have been trained and protected adequately,” Subra said. “It was inappropriate to expose them to toxic chemicals as they did their job.” She told federal officials the workers needed respirators, but was rebuffed. “They said I would be killing the workers because of the heat,” she said. “There are suits with piped-in cooling. Cleanups happen all the time in hot weather.”[7]

NOAA scientists/divers getting very sick, told there was no danger. Gulf waters disintegrated the rubber on diving suits.[17]

"Hertsgaard goes on to explain that although BP has set aside roughly $8 billion for medical expenses related to the spill, the illnesses these people are suffering from are not covered under that settlement".[1]

The Corexit broke the oil droplets down into smaller drops, creating the plume, Hollander said. Then the smaller oil droplets bonded with clay and other materials carried into the gulf by the Mississippi, sinking into the sediment where they killed the foraminifera (base of food chain).[22]

[1] http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2013/04/22/what-bp-doesn-t-want-you-to-know-about-the-2010-gulf-spill.html Newsweek investigation/Hertsgaard

[2] http://www.treehugger.com/energy-disasters/bps-lies-about-gulf-oil-spill-should-worry-arkansas-victims-exxon-spill.html

[3] http://www.livescience.com/25159-oil-dispersant-increases-toxicity.html

[4] http://www.democracynow.org/2010/5/27/coast_guard_grounds_ships_involved_in

[5] http://blog.sfgate.com/green/2010/07/08/sources-bp-threatens-to-fire-cleanup-workers-who-wear-respirators/#ixzz0t7sd1lTm

[6] http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/13/business/energy-environment/13greenwire-less-toxic-dispersants-lose-out-in-bp-oil-spil-81183.html

[7] http://www.takepart.com/article/2013/04/17/corexit-deepwater-horizon-oil-spill

[8] http://leanweb.org/our-work/water/bp-oil-spill/results-of-the-louisiana-environmental-action-network-lean-survey-of-the-human-health-impacts-due-to-the-bp-deepwater-horizon-disaster

[9] http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=is-using-dispersants-fighting-pollution-with-pollution

[10] http://www.nwf.org/news-and-magazines/media-center/reports/archive/2013/04-02-13-restoring-a-degraded-gulf-of-mexico.aspx

[11] http://news.discovery.com/animals/whales-dolphins/record-dolphin-sea-turtle-deaths-since-gulf-spill-130402.htm

[12] http://news.fsu.edu/More-FSU-News/Dirty-blizzard-in-Gulf-may-account-for-missing-Deepwater-Horizon-oil

[13] http://phys.org/news/2012-11-lessons-bp-oil.html

[14] http://www.fox8live.com/story/22019611/finding-oil-in-the-marsh-3-years-after-the-bp-spill

[15] http://www.whistleblower.org/program-areas/public-health/corexit

[16] http://www.whistleblower.org/blog/44-2013/2643-3-years-after-deepwater-horizon-report-shows-devastating-impact-of-dispersant-used-in-qcleanupq GAP report

[17] http://www.tampabay.com/news/environment/water/divers-say-they-still-suffer-ailments-from-2010-oil-spill/2123134

[18] http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/04/three-years-after-the-bp-spill-tar-balls-and-oil-sheen-blight-gulf-coast/275139/

[19] http://www.tampabay.com/news/environment/water/gulf-oil-spill-killed-millions-of-microscopic-creatures-at-base-of-food/2113157

[20] http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/09/30/us-oil-spill-carcinogens-idUSTRE68T6FS20100930

[21] http://www.democracynow.org/2010/7/20/epa_whistleblower_accuses_agency_of_covering

[22] http://www.tampabay.com/news/environment/water/gulf-oil-spill-killed-millions-of-microscopic-creatures-at-base-of-food/2113157


 * WOW! That is a twelve course meal! It might take awhile to consume it. So...lack of quick response should not be judged as dis-interest. I'm a slow eater! ```Buster Seven   Talk  23:56, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey, this story has waited three years, there is no urgency. I just needed to get it off my chest, so to speak. I haven't had the time to whittle it down yet, as RL is a full plate. One thing that might be missing is the back-and-forth between BP and the EPA about this use of Corexit. Gandy might be knowledgeable about this, if I remember correctly their previous work updating the DWH article. Another thing I should mention for the draft-building process going on here, is that I reached out, following Slim Virgin's advise, to people more able to counteract (not sure of the correct term here) BP's drafts. I got two "yes" responses: Hugh Kaufman and Cherri Foytlin. Cherri is pretty much the number one Gulf activist (google her) and is a terrific journalist. She has agreed to look over any drafts we have about the spill/Corexit and give pointers, etc.  petrarchan47  t  c   00:22, 5 July 2013 (UTC)


 * This article is about BP as a company with 100-years history. How this story would fit in this article, particularly taking account the results of the latest RfC? It is important information but as was said several times earlier, there are more specific article for this. Beagel (talk) 06:54, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, you have said this before. However, other editors wholeheartedly agreed this is the most appropriate article for this story, given the level BP's involvement in it, and that it deserves its own section given its profound volume (most ever used, used in novel ways, etc). And what does this have to do with the RfC?  petrarchan47  t  c   07:07, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, you're assuming the results of the RfC included wide knowledge of the Corexit story. I would guess it did not. We could do an RfC over inclusion of this section.  petrarchan47  t  c   07:17, 5 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Your interpretation of that discussion is incorrect. And as usage of Corexit was part of the DWH spill, it is directly about the consensus reached by RfC. Beagel (talk) 07:18, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It is not an interpretation, I am showing that you are alone in this sentiment, and that another editor agrees with me (I believe there were two others who were in support as well). If the editors who voted were unaware of this story (which is a standalone story related to the spill, but a story in its own right having everything to do with BP), then the vote did not include any reference to whether this should be mentioned or how. We could always ask the editors if they had the above facts in mind when they voted, rather than assuming they did.  petrarchan47  t  c   07:26, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The Corexit usage issue was certainly not, in any way, even mentioned in the recent RfC's and should not be considered as having been analyzed by involved editors. To allocate consensus for some reconstruction of the DWH section to now, after the fact, also cover a completely different part of the DWH story is....unfortunate. ```Buster Seven   Talk  14:44, 5 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, Buster is correct. According to the gov't report, "The result of this cascade of failures is a disaster unprecedented in the history of the offshore oil and gas industry." The massive use of Corexit, including its first use deep underwater, certainly must be included since it is unprecedented as well. A sentence or two in the spill section is not at all adequate. Gandydancer (talk) 15:03, 5 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The RfC was about the whole DWH section. Saying that Corexit is not a part of DWH or that because the RfC question does not mentioned Corexit, the reached consensus that there should be two paragraphs about DHW does not apply to the Corexit issue, is not constructive and goes against reached consensus. Beagel (talk) 15:05, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * @ Editor Beagel - To be clear, I think it is the other way 'round. Including Corexit in the two paragraph "deal" is not constructive and is meant to circumvent inclusion of pertinent, but damaging, info about BP's practices after the spill started. ```Buster Seven   Talk  16:29, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that the most recent RfC covered the Corexit issue, in that it asked how many paragraphs there should be about the DWH spill – including environmental/health and legal/financial – and the consensus was two. Consensus can change in future if further Corexit issues arise, but for now it should be covered in this article as part of a two-paragraph DWH subsection, with more details available in other, dedicated, articles. I think we should focus on writing two paragraphs that people can agree on, so that the DWH RfCs are finally dealt with.


 * Petra, I hope you don't mind that I've hatted the drafts you added here. I did it partly because they took up a lot of space (and aren't being suggested for the article), but also just in case there were copyright issues. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:02, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The DWH section is beginning to feel like a High School term paper with a 1000 word restriction. And the more general info that the 1000 words (or two paragraphs) have to cover the LESS specific it can be about either topic. How about 3 paragraphs. One for DWH. One for Corexit. And one to wrap it all up. ```Buster Seven   Talk  16:18, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I would also prefer to have more space, but the consensus from the RfC was two paragraphs, so we should stick to that, in the interests of respecting dispute resolution and moving on. The first RfC on this issue began on 9 May and the second closed on 3 July, so we can't keep extending it. Let's get the two paragraphs written and move onto the next issue. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:42, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * No, it's good that you've hatted it, but I don't believe the editors who voted on a two paragraph limit knew they were including this use of chemicals which occurred during the spill, but which is a separate and individual story that deserves coverage. One other consensed idea was that to summarize the DWH content did not mean to cut actual information. What exactly is the goal here, in basic terms, with this insistence on two paragraphs? It's certainly not to inform the reader, and given this is an encyclopedia that is confusing to me. Do you think the editors were aware they were including the entire corexit story?


 * Would anyone be willing to open an RfC on the inclusion of the corexit story in this article? Thanks for your consideration in advance.18:10, 5 July 2013 (UTC)  petrarchan47  t  c  


 * What I'd suggest is getting the two-paragraph DWH summary installed, then if you still want to, you could write a paragraph or two about Corexit for a separate subsection, and hold an RfC to ask whether there's consensus to add it. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:39, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * This Corexit section was never meant to halt the DWH installation. And there is no reason to wait for the two paragraphs to be written, as these are separate, albeit related, stories involving BP. I left the info here because I don't have the time to work on this myself, and I am observing that there are other editors who seem willing to put in some effort here, and because others have agreed the section is warranted. I agree an RfC would be good, but again I haven't the space in my life atm to take this on.  petrarchan47  t  c   18:48, 5 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I'd be happy to write an RfC for you, but you (or someone) would have to write a Corexit draft so that respondents would know what they were being asked to comment on. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:56, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Why thank you, that's a nice offer. It makes sense to need a draft first, but know that if the writing is left to me, it could be a while. Someone else might be able to get to it sooner.   petrarchan47  t  c   21:27, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * "Moving along" as a goal would explain for me why the arguments here aren't making sense. Take a look at the Prudhoe Bay section - it is a chunky 4-5 paragraph section and no one has a problem with it. That spill pales in comparison to the DWH issue. If hurrying this page along is the goal, rather than taking time to go through the process (with more than just Skim and Beagle's input) of creating adequate coverage, I've no interest in helping out here either.  petrarchan47  t  c  


 * What has happened is that each side has reacted to edits by the other side. So someone adds too-short a section about DWH. Someone responds by adding too-long a section. An RfC is held, and uninvolved editors see there is too much and suggest cutting it. You didn't express a preference about length during the RfC; I believe I was the only one who suggested four paragraphs, but a lone voice isn't enough. So now we have to focus on writing two paragraphs. It's easier for readers to read a shorter, less detailed section anyway. People wanting more detail can click on the links. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:47, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * you sure are reading the results re length a lot differently than I am...  Gandydancer (talk) 19:09, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * My comments about length were that until we have determined the impact the DWH story has on BP, to denote some predetermined length would be entirely arbitrary - a shite way to develope a wiki article. People agreed the company's stock had been thus far permanently cut by up to 30%, but the conversation stopped there. Even with this bit of information, a good-sized section is warranted. And I have little respect for a system which allows without question the votes of CREWE members, who have already declared a pro-corporate POV, to be counted as equal to independent editors who actually put in time and research and stick around to help create content rather than just vote or give opinions. Now to even question this system is controversial and receives no support. There was an editor who asserted that no oil had touched any coastline and that the spill was entirely harmless since it happened so far out at sea. His vote counted 100% equal to mine. He voted we shouldn't mention the pesky spill at all. This is the RfC system we bow down to? This needs some consideration, as things have changed since CREWE emerged on scene. If we are truly gong to allow voting on wikipedia now, we need to have some caveats, like, for instance, requiring that voters have a bit of information about the topic.   petrarchan47  t  c   19:28, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I did not specify a specific length but said that the oil spill required whatever length was necessary. If I'd known that people would just arbitrarily state specific numbers I'd have gotten a great deal more specific. I don't believe that neutrality permits confinement of the entire section to two paragraphs, unless they are very long ones. They certainly should not be cut to ribbons as one editor just proposed and sought to implement. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 20:57, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It has been suggested that the paragraphs could be very long ones, but that only points to the ridiculous situation we have here. Not only is the limit arbitrarily chosen using a questionable system, but the unit of measurement is equally unclear. I suggested earlier we switch to speaking in terms of Bytes, but no one bit.  petrarchan47  t  c   07:17, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That was definitely not a serious suggestion. :-) After thinking about it, my advice would probably be to pick a random FA or three and average the length of all the paragraphs in each. (In bytes of readable prose.) Arc de Ciel (talk) 11:44, 6 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Please explan why you just reverted 'my', version of three paragraphs, based on the DHOS lead and which covers all the salient issues to a version which two RfCs have shown no support for. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:05, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * @ Martin. Whom do you mean by "you"? It would be a courtesy to other editors if you would name the "you" that has reverted you. In that way future readers of this talk page will not have to refer to the articles history to find out whom you are mad at. ```Buster Seven   Talk  21:14, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * @Martin Hogbin: I think that as a threshold matter, the version needs to have working references. This was explained to you when another editor asked you to self-revert. It was also explained to you that there was no consensus for your version. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 21:21, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * @Martin. One other thing...your version mentions "the largest accidental oil spill......". Wouldn't 'accidental' be redundant? Was there a larger oil spill that was intentional? I'm just saying.....```Buster Seven   Talk  21:34, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The largest oil spill was not an accident. BPs is the second largest unless you specify "accidental".  petrarchan47  t  c   21:40, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link, Petra, ```Buster Seven   Talk  03:24, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * This underlines my point that we need a precise and deliberative process to determine how this section is to be summarized. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 21:45, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Absolutely agree. I'm finding myself unwilling to take part in hacking away information to reach some arbitrary text limit on an article that is not too long, and about a section that is absurdly important to the subject of the page. I like this: The motto of the AIW is Conservata veritate, which translates to, "With the preserved truth". This motto reflects the inclusionist desire to change Wikipedia only when no knowledge would be lost as a result.  petrarchan47  t  c   07:09, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Specifics from the GAP report
Select Report Findings[16]

Existing Health Problems


 * Eventually coined "BP Syndrome" or "Gulf Coast Syndrome," all GAP witnesses experienced spill-related health problems. Some of these effects include: blood in urine; heart palpitations; kidney damage; liver damage; migraines; multiple chemical sensitivity; neurological damage resulting in memory loss; rapid weight loss; respiratory system and nervous system damage; seizures; skin irritation, burning and lesions; and temporary paralysis.
 * Interviewees are also extremely concerned about recognized long-term health effects from chemical exposure (from those specific chemicals found in Corexit/oil mixtures), which may not have manifested yet. These include reproductive damage (such as genetic mutations), endocrine disruption, and cancer.
 * Blood test results from a majority of GAP interviewees showed alarmingly high levels of chemical exposure – to Corexit and oil – that correlated with experienced health effects. These chemicals include known carcinogens.

The Failure to Protect Cleanup Workers


 * Contrary to warnings in BP's own internal manual, BP and the government misrepresented known risks by asserting that Corexit was low in toxicity.
 * Despite the fact that the Occupational Safety and Health Administration has developed a highly-lauded safety training program for cleanup workers, the workers interviewed reported that they either did not receive any training or did not receive the federally required training.
 * Federally required worker resource manuals detailing Corexit health hazards (according to a confidential whistleblower) were not delivered or were removed from BP worksites early in the cleanup, as health problems began.
 * A FOIA request found that government agency regulations prohibited diving during the spill due to health risks. Yet, divers contracted by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and interviewed by GAP dove after assurances that it was safe and additional protective equipment was unnecessary.
 * BP and the federal government, through their own medical monitoring programs, each publicly denied that any significant chemical exposure to humans was occurring. Of the workers GAP interviewed, 87% reported contact with Corexit while on the job and blood test results revealed high levels of chemical exposure.
 * BP and the federal government believed that allowing workers to wear respirators would not create a positive public image. The federal government permitted BP's retaliation against workers who insisted on wearing this protection. Nearly half of the cleanup workers interviewed by GAP reported that they were threatened with termination when they tried to wear respirators or additional safety equipment on the job. Many received early termination notices after raising safety concerns on the job.
 * All workers interviewed reported that they were provided minimal or no personal protective equipment on the job.

Ecological Problems & Food Safety Issues


 * A majority of GAP witnesses reported that they found evidence of oil or oil debris after BP and the Coast Guard announced that cleanup operations were complete.
 * BP and the federal government reported that Corexit was last used in July 2010. A majority of GAP witnesses cited indications that Corexit was used after that time.
 * The oil-Corexit mixture coated the Gulf seafloor and permeated the Gulf's rich ecological web. GAP witnesses have revealed underwater footage of an oil-covered barren seafloor, documenting widespread damage to coral reefs.
 * The FDA grossly misrepresented the results of its analysis of Gulf seafood safety. Of GAP's witnesses, a majority expressed concern over the quality of government seafood testing, and reported seeing new seafood deformities firsthand. A majority of fishermen reported that their catch has decreased significantly since the spill.

Inadequate Compensation


 * BP's Gulf Coast Claims Fund (GCCF) denied all health claims during its 18 months of existence. Although a significant precedent, the subsequent medical class action suit excluded countless sick individuals, bypassed the worst health effects resulting from exposure to dispersant and oil, offered grossly inadequate maximum awards compared to medical costs, and did not include medical treatment.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Petrarchan47 (talk • contribs) 03:14, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

BP/Gov't position, etc
Al Jazeera video

"Time and again, those working to clean up the 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill were assured that Corexit....was as safe as "dishwasher soap"."

"In a statement issued by BP, the oil company said: "Use of dispersants during the Deepwater Horizon oil spill was co-ordinated with and approved by federal agencies including the US Coast Guard and EPA. Based on extensive monitoring conducted by BP and the federal agencies, BP is not aware of any data showing worker or public exposures to dispersants that would pose a health or safety concern."

"According to a new report released by the Government Accountability Project, nearly half of workers reported that their employers told them Corexit did not pose a health risk."

"And nearly all those interviewed, reported receiving minimal or no protective equipment despite warnings clearly spelled out in the manual provided by Corexit's manufacturer."

"Now three years on, many cleanup workers are reporting serious health problems including seizures, temporary paralysis and memory loss."

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Petrarchan47 (talk • contribs) 03:23, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

This is getting silly.
We have had two RfCs and there is no doubt at all that there is no consensus for the current version, yet every attempt a changing to a version in line with the RfC results (and based on a consensus of editors elsewhere) is reverted wholesale to the version that we know has no consensus. This is now becoming tendentious editing. We have followed WP dispute resolution procedure and we have got a result. Now we need to implement that. I have no objection to editing of my version but wholesale reversion is unacceptable.

The only way forward that I can see now is to ask those who contributed to the two RfCs to comment on which of three versions, mine, Slim Virgin's, and the current one, now change to. Any better suggestions? Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:00, 5 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Martin, most of the references in your draft didn't work, so fixing it would have been a lot of work. You also removed the images and template for no reason. Why not wait until we've created a draft that is good enough to add? Then we can ask whether people agree with it. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:21, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The refs are no problem. If I did not think that my hard work would be immediately deleted I would fix the refs myself. What is the point of having two RfCs if we are going to ignore the results? Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:52, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

The question by Martin is relevant. For constructive work and progress we have to decide based on which draft/version we continue our work. Beagel (talk) 09:01, 6 July 2013 (UTC)


 * How about this as a compromise proposal? Let the section stay in for now, but tag it as to respect the RfC. Give it some time for discussion (say, two weeks) and at that point the tag will be removed and whichever version has the most support at that time will go in, but (of course) that version can still be edited further or replaced in turn. This would carry out the RfC results within a reasonable timeframe but also allow everyone to have at least some input into the new version before it goes live. Arc de Ciel (talk) 11:46, 6 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Please go forward and put this tag. There was an attempt some months ago to tag this section with this tag and you may guess how fast the tag was removed. Beagel (talk) 12:06, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It may be the best that we can do in the circumstances. The point is that we had an RfC on this very topic and it showed no consensus for the current extreme section.  What we should do is remove it and replace it with something in accordance with the RfC.  We can then discuss changes to that.  I repeat, what is the point of having two RfCs if we are going to ignore the results?  Edit warring wins the day. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:17, 6 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't place the tag myself absent agreement from more editors (and if there is such agreement anyone could place it). I'm not ArbCom, so I have no authority to enforce a solution. :-) My feeling is that you wouldn't be reverted if you placed it now, but I've been wrong about that before, and you might encounter more difficulties in two weeks if there isn't agreement at the beginning. Like I said, I'm trying not to be involved in this issue. Arc de Ciel (talk) 23:34, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Yet another RfC!
As it seems that the results of two RfCs are not enough for some editors to accept the consensus I am going to propose yet another one on which we propose an number of drafts for the article. The would include, The current version, Buster7's version, my version and slim Virgin's version. Anyone else who wants to write one could add theirs to the list. This seems to be the only way to resolve this problem. I would add that anyone who wants to add extended content about Corexit should write a proposal,containing the proposed content, for submission to the RfC. This is the only way that we can get a clear resolution to this issue. I suggest that, like the last one, we limit this to 14 days. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:01, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you need to wait until there's been more discussion on the options before starting an RfC. :-) What do you think of my suggestion above? Arc de Ciel (talk) 11:47, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree as to waiting before starting the RFC. There has been enough discussion at the previous RFC.  Anyone can add any more drafts after the RFC is published.  Robert McClenon (talk) 17:20, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I do not see ignoring the two previous RfCs as an option that we should discuss. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:23, 6 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I hope we can use our common sense and agree without a new RfC. There a number of issues with this article which all probably need RfCs. Having several RfCs at the same time makes confusion and people usually would comment only the latest one. Beagel (talk) 17:51, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * So would I but I it is not looking good so far. Any attempt that I have made to change to something like that suggested by the two RfC has been immediately reverted to the original no-consensus version.  I see no attempt at serious discussion on how we can implement the results of the two RfCs, all we have is arguments that they were somehow wrong and really meant something else.


 * I am not in any way suggesting that any version of mine must stay unchanged in the article, only that we start with something closer to that suggested by the RfCs. My shortened version of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill lead is surely a good neutral start.  It is certainly not my work as I have never contributed to that article.


 * I am happy to leave it a few days to see if there is any genuine interest in changing the section but if nothing happens soon I will start another RfC with a view to getting a definitive resolution to this dispute. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:42, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Before we go any further, I need to clarify something. When I did my re-write (Version #2 Of DWH lead), I imagined that it would be the lead in a thread about the DWH Spill. I thought that there would be sub-threads that would elaborate on the consequences, --Environment--, --Health --, --Financial-- and --Legal--. I though maybe we could cut the size of the section in half to appease other editors worried about the length. I never imagined that what I waa supporting (and I guess looking back, promoting) was the complete destruction of the section and turning it into just two paragraphs. When Editor RightCowlLeftCoast made his 18 June suggestion regarding the lead that was at the DWN oil spill article and that it be used at the BP article, he also stated that it could be "summarized ____ further". I didn't like that suggestion of further summarizing because it meant removal of something. That was my thinking when I responded with "Both should be covered. As to length, etc, etc, etc." When the discussion started to talk about # of sentences and how long the paragraphs should be, I still never thought we were talking about replacing 17000 bytes with just two paragraphs. I thought we were working on the lead to a section and further construction of sub-threads would take place. I know that is not what is happening. And I'm not bringing this up to be a boulder in the way of progress. I just needed to clarify what I was thinking and responding to in case others misunderstood my support two weeks ago. ```Buster Seven   Talk  13:35, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I take it you are saying that you want to withdraw your proposed version (that I supported) because it was incomplete. I think it is fairly clear what 'summarise further' means, and that is not to add stuff.


 * You talk of reducing 17000 bytes to two paragraphs but there never was a consensus for the greatly expanded version. It was pushed though against consensus by a small group of editors.  The last version that had any sort of consensus and stability is shown below. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:56, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * No, I don't want to withdraw it. I just wanted to explain my mind-set when I rewrote Editor RCLC's lift from the DWH oil spill article. And...its not as clear as you think. You have your interpretation, "It's just about two paragraphs". And I have mine, "This is just the first step in moving us forward as to the length of the section". And there are, I'm sure many other interpretations. So "fairly clear. ?. I don't think so. Again, I don't withdraw my version. I may wind up supporting another, but that is my prerogative. ```<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  14:26, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I am perfectly happy to leave your version in the RfC. I think it is just fine. I think we should add the version below too. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:29, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Last consensus version
From 1 April 2013:

''The 20 April 2010 explosion on BP's offshore drilling rig in the Gulf of Mexico resulted in the deaths of 11 people and injured 16 others.[316][317][318] It caused the Deepwater Horizon to burn and sink, and started the largest accidental offshore oil spill in the history of the petroleum industry.[17][319][209] On September 8, 2010, BP released a 193-page report on its web site. The report places some of the blame for the accident on BP but also on Halliburton and Transocean.[320] Responding to the report, Transocean and Halliburon placed all blame on BP. [321] On November 9, 2010, a report by the Oil Spill Commission said that there had been "a rush to completion" on the well and criticized poor management decisions. "There was not a culture of safety on that rig," the co-chair said.[322]''

That is it. One paragraph. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:00, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Above you mention four potential versions: The current version, Buster7's version, my version and Slim Virgin's version.. Is this "Last consensus version" a fifth candidate? If so, we need to gather all the five potential versions together in a row so editors don't have to wander here and there. ```<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  14:38, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Buster7's version (aka Version #2 Of DWH lead)

 * The U.S. government's Sept 2011 report was one of many investigations exploring the explosion and subsequent record-setting oil spill. The report pointed to defective cement used to construct the well, faulting mostly BP, but also rig operator Transocean and contractor Halliburton. [17][18]. A White House commission had earlier found fault with BP and its partners for a series of cost-cutting decisions and an inadequate safety system. The report stated that "the spill resulted from systemic root causes and absent significant reform in both industry practices and government policies, might well recur." [19]
 * In Nov 2012, BP pled guilty to 11 counts of manslaughter, two misdemeanors, and a felony count of lying to Congress. BP agreed to four years of government monitoring of its safety practices and ethics, and the EPA announced that BP would be temporarily banned from new contracts with the US government. BP and the Department of Justice agreed to a record-setting $4.525 billion in fines and other payments.[20][21][22] Legal proceedings continue to determine additional fines and payouts under the Clean Water Act and the Natural Resources Damage Assessment.[23][24] As of Feb 2013, criminal and civil settlements and payments have cost the company $42.2 Billion. [25]

The current version (from the article on 7/7/2013)
On 20 April 2010, the semi-submersible exploratory offshore drilling rig Deepwater Horizon located in the Macondo Prospect in the Gulf of Mexico exploded after a blowout, killing 11 people, injuring 16 others. After burning for two days, the rig sank and caused the largest accidental marine oil spill in the history of the petroleum industry, estimated to be between 8% and 31% larger in volume than the earlier Ixtoc I oil spill. Before the well was capped on 15 July 2010, an estimated 4.9 Moilbbl of oil was leaked with plus or minus 10% uncertainty. 810000 oilbbl of oil was collected or burned while 4.1 Moilbbl entered the Gulf waters. 1.8 e6USgal of Corexit dispersant was applied.

The spill had a strong economic impact on both BP and the Gulf Coast's economy sectors such as fishing and tourism. In late 2012 local fishermen reported that crab, shrimp, and oyster fishing operations had not yet recovered from the oil spill and many feared that the Gulf seafood industry will never recover.

Environmental impact
Research into the environmental impacts is ongoing. Oil spills are known to cause both immediate and long-term harm to human health and ecosystems. In the summer of 2010, scientists reported immense underwater plumes of dissolved oil in addition to an 80 sqmi "kill zone" surrounding the blown well. Researchers reported that the oil and dispersant mixture, including polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), permeated the food chain through zooplankton. Dolphins and other marine life continued to die in 'record numbers' three years after the spill, with infant dolphins dying at six times the normal rate. This was seen as an indicator that something was "amiss" in the Gulf ecosystem. The killifish, a common bait fish at the base of the food chain, was found to have sustained cellular damage due to oil spill residue in the sediments, resulting in damaged heart and cardiovascular systems as well as delayed or failure to hatch. Researchers called the killifish the 'canary in the coal mine' for understanding long-term spill impacts.

Three years after the spill began, tar balls were still being found on Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana and Florida coastlines. In 2013, more than 2.7 million pounds of "oiled material" were removed from the Louisiana coast. Oil remains in affected coastal areas as well and erosion has increased due to the death of mangrove trees and marsh grass. Researchers found that oil on the bottom of the seafloor did not seem to be degrading, and observed a phenomenon called "dirty blizzard": oil caused deep ocean sediments to clump together, falling to the ocean floor at ten times the normal rate in an "underwater rain of oily particles." The result could have long-term effects on both human and marine life because oil could remain in the food chain for generations. In mid-2013, waters near East Grand Terre, Louisiana were re-closed to commercial fishing when a 40,000 pound "tar mat" was found just off the coast. Research in 2013 suggested as much as one-third of the released oil remains in the Gulf.

Health effects
In August 2011 the Government Accountability Project (GAP) began an investigation of the health issues associated with the oil spill cleanup. Witnesses reported a host of ailments, including "eye, nose and throat irritation; respiratory problems; blood in urine, vomit and rectal bleeding; seizures; nausea and violent vomiting episodes that last for hours; skin irritation, burning and lesions; short-term memory loss and confusion; liver and kidney damage; central nervous system effects and nervous system damage; hypertension; and miscarriages." Studies discussed at a 2013 conference found that a "significant percentage" of Gulf residents reported mental health problems such as anxiety, depression and PTSD. These studies also showed that the bodies of former spill cleanup workers carry biomarkers of many chemicals contained in the oil. A study that investigated the health effects among children in Louisiana and Florida living less than 10 miles from the coast found that more than a third of the parents reported physical or mental health symptoms among their children.

Criminal prosecutions
On March 11, 2011, the US Department of Justice formed the "Deepwater Horizon Task Force" to consolidate several federal agencies' investigations into possible criminal charges stemming the explosion and spill. On 14 November 2012, the DOJ announced that BP and the DOJ had reached a $4 billion settlement of all federal criminal charges related to the explosion and spill, the largest of its kind in US history. Under the settlement, BP agreed to plead guilty to 11 felony counts of manslaughter, two misdemeanors, and a felony count of lying to Congress and agreed to four years of government monitoring of its safety practices and ethics. BP also paid $525 million to settle civil charges by the Securities and Exchange Commission that it misled investors about the flow rate of oil from the well. As part of the announcement of the settlement, BP said it was increasing its reserve for a trust fund to pay costs and claims related to the spill to about $42 billion. On the same day, the US government filed criminal charges against three BP employees; two site managers were charged with manslaughter and negligence, and one former vice president with obstruction. Near the end of November 2012, the U.S. Government temporarily banned BP from bidding any new federal contracts, citing the company’s “lack of business integrity.” As of February 2013, criminal and civil settlements and payments to the trust fund had cost the company $42.2 billion.

Civil proceedings
On December 15, 2010, The US Department of Justice filed a civil and criminal suit against BP and other defendants for violations under the Clean Water Act in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. The case was consolidated with about 200 others, including those brought by state governments, individuals, and companies under Multi-District Litigation docket MDL No. 2179, before U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier. Judge Barbier is trying the case without a jury, as is normal in United States admiralty law. The Justice Department contends that BP committed gross negligence and willful misconduct, which BP contests, and is seeking the stiffest penalties possible. A ruling of gross negligence would result in a four-fold increase in Clean Water Act penalties, which would cause the penalties to reach approximately $17.6 billion, and would increase damages in the other suits as well. Any fines from gross negligence would hit BP's bottom line very hard, because they would not be tax-deductible. The company paid no federal income tax to the U.S. government in 2010 because of deductions related to the spill.

The consolidated trial's first phase began on February 25, 2013, to determine the liability of BP, Transocean, Halliburton, and other companies, and to determine whether the companies acted with gross negligence and willful misconduct. The second phase, scheduled in September 2013, will focus on the amount of oil spilled into the gulf and who was responsible for stopping it. The third phase will focus on all other liability that occurred in the process of oil spill cleanup and containment issues, including the use of dispersants. Test jury trials will follow to determine actual damage amounts.

Comment:Seeing Slim Virgin's RfC below, I will stop my attempt to 'put everything in a row". However, I should point out that Slim's RfC is missing one candidates: the article thread on 1 April that Martin refers to as the "Last consensus version". If we want a clear starting line for progress, lets put everything on the table. I hope Editor slim can still add the April 1st thread.```<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk ''' 16:47, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Buster, there is no consensus for a one-paragraph version (from April), or for the current long version. Please see the closing editor's remarks at RfC (2). That's the basis that we proceed from now. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:56, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * If we are going to agree now that there is no consensus for the current version then we should not leave it as an RfC choice. I originally suggested having it because a 'no consensus' decision could have been taken as a consensus to leave current version in place.  If we all agree that we are not to do that then we should remove that option.  As I proposed it I will do so but can we please make clear that we want respondents to choose between the options given only.  Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:42, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with both Editors that the choice should be only from the options in this mornings RfC. My support is as an agreed to starting point...that can be expanded if that is deemed necessary by future consensus. ```<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  19:11, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Moving discussion to sub page
Last week, much of the older discussions on the Talk page were archived, including a request of mine regarding BP's announcement that it's wind farms are for sale, which was still under discussion. So that editors here who were involved in that discussion are aware, I wanted to note here that I have moved the request to the Corrections and resources sub page. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 21:43, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion for DWH section
I think I would prefer not to get involved in suggesting drafts for the article; it's time-consuming (especially as I'm not familiar with any of this), and people have to be willing to compromise so that an agreement can be reached. I'm therefore going to leave you with the draft I suggested as a starting point, which I've tweaked to take account of Beagel's correction of the figures. The only thing that might need to be added is BP's perspective, if it departs from what's in the draft. I'm posting it below with the images and templates that are in the current version.

In my view, the best course of action now is to add this to the article so that the RfC is completed, then work on it from there.

Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill


The Deepwater Horizon oil spill began on 20 April 2010 when the Deepwater Horizon, a drilling rig owned by Transocean and leased by BP to drill an exploratory well, exploded off the coast of Louisiana in the United States, killing 11 workers. Between then and 15 July, around 4.1 Moilbbl of oil spilled into the Gulf of Mexico, the largest spill in US history. The plume of oil was reported at one point to be 2 km wide and 200 m high. Around 180 mi of shoreline were "heavily to moderately oiled," according to a US government report, and scientists reported that "[i]mmense amounts of toxic reservoir fluids and gases" had escaped into the gulf. There were further safety concerns about the nine million litres of oil dispersants, Corexit 9527 and 9500, BP used during the cleanup, around a third of it added at depth; it was the largest known application of such dispersants to date.

The environmental impact may not be known for decades. Around 7,000 dead animals were collected, including birds, sea turtles and 700 dolphins; scientists say only a small percentage of carcasses wash ashore and that the number of dead animals is significantly higher. The human health cost will likewise take years to evaluate: a variety of complaints have been reported, including respiratory, eye, nose and throat problems, skin irritation and vomiting episodes. The Deepwater Horizon Study Group, an international team of 64 experts, attributed the spill to BP's safety culture; the group said safety had been compromised by "a cascade of deeply flawed failure and signal analysis, decision-making, communication, and organizational–managerial processes." In November 2012, BP pleaded guilty in the US to 11 counts of manslaughter, two misdemeanors, and a felony count of lying to Congress about the size of the spill. The company agreed to pay $4 billion in fines and other penalties; it estimated that settlements and other expenses would cost it $42 billion in total.

Draft to edit


The Deepwater Horizon oil spill began on 20 April 2010 when the Deepwater Horizon, a drilling rig owned by Transocean and leased by BP to drill an exploratory well, exploded off the coast of Louisiana in the United States, killing 11 workers. Between then and 15 July, around 4.1 Moilbbl of oil spilled into the Gulf of Mexico, the largest spill in US history. The plume of oil was reported at one point to be 2 km wide and 200 m high. Around 180 mi of shoreline were "heavily to moderately oiled," according to a US government report, and scientists reported that "[i]mmense amounts of toxic reservoir fluids and gases" had escaped into the gulf. There were further safety concerns about the nine million litres of oil dispersants, Corexit 9527 and 9500, BP used during the cleanup, around a third of it added at depth; it was the largest known application of such dispersants to date.

The environmental impact may not be known for decades. Around 7,000 dead animals were collected, including birds, sea turtles and 700 dolphins; scientists say only a small percentage of carcasses wash ashore and that the number of dead animals is significantly higher. The human health cost will likewise take years to evaluate: a variety of complaints have been reported, including respiratory, eye, nose and throat problems, skin irritation and vomiting episodes. The Deepwater Horizon Study Group, an international team of 64 experts, attributed the spill to BP's safety culture; the group said safety had been compromised by "a cascade of deeply flawed failure and signal analysis, decision-making, communication, and organizational–managerial processes." In November 2012, BP pleaded guilty in the US to 11 counts of manslaughter, two misdemeanors, and a felony count of lying to Congress about the size of the spill. The company agreed to pay $4 billion in fines and other penalties; it estimated that settlements and other expenses would cost it $42 billion in total.


 * Notes

Discussion

 * I am sorry but I am confused. Why this draft was repeated as it is located just above this draft? Actually, it was not fully repeated – I added some convert templates to the previous draft which are all gone from this draft. Beagel (talk) 17:46, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, my mistake. Beagel (talk) 17:56, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think anything you added has gone; I copied it as it was. The reason I posted a second version was that so people could do whatever they wanted with it, without my signature being underneath it. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:13, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, it was my mistake. Beagel (talk) 18:18, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Amount of dispersant used
The amount of dispersant needs clarification. The article by Scientific American says that 1.8 million gallons of Corexit was used. Nature says that 9 million litres was used which is 2.4 million gallons. There is a gap 0.6 million gallons which needs to be clarified. According to this hearing the figure is 1.8 million gallons. HARTE Research Institute says "more than 1.8 million". Norwegian Institute for Water Research says approximately 1.8 million. The National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling says 1.84 million. It seems that the figure 1.84 million is correct and the figure 9 million litres by Nature is incorrect. Beagel (talk) 08:58, 6 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Beagel, by all means go into the draft and fix this. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:41, 6 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I changed it to 1.84 US gallons per National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling report. Beagel (talk) 07:26, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Format of references
As the rest of this article uses mainly references templates, such as cite web, cite news, cite book, cite journal and cite report, I propose that also this section should use references formatted similarly. Beagel (talk) 09:06, 6 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Again, feel free to reformat the references. I don't use templates, so I just wrote them the way I'm familiar with. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:41, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Plume
The sentence "The plume of oil was reported at one point to be 2 kilometres (1.2 mi) wide and 200 metres (660 ft) high." seems to be redundant in this article. What is important is the final impact. It is like describing in this article how may vessels, planes of workers were involved in response operations at one point.


 * I added this sentence because it's a good visual aid. X million gallons doesn't mean anything to most people. But if you think it's inappropriate, please remove it. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:41, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

RfC (3) on Deepwater Horizon oil spill section
Summary for the bot: This is an RfC to ask whether there is consensus to add one of the proposed drafts, as a starting point, for a new summary-style subsection on the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:28, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

---

RfC (1) on this issue, which closed on 17 June, resulted in consensus to include a summary-style subsection on the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill, and that the current version was too detailed and should be trimmed.

RfC (2), which closed on 3 July, resulted in consensus to write a two-paragraph subsection to replace the current version, covering the environmental/health aspects of the spill, and the legal/financial consequences for the company.

This is an RfC to determine whether there is consensus to add any of the following versions to the article as first drafts. Further editing of the draft would take place as usual, within the constraints of the RfC (2) consensus, once the draft was added to the article. Therefore, please choose the version you would prefer as a starting point. There is no proposal to change the images and DWH template currently in that section, so the new section will look the same in that regard; an earlier RfC, which closed on 28 May, resulted in consensus to place the DWH template there. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:28, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Buster7
The U.S. government's Sept 2011 report was one of many investigations exploring the explosion and subsequent record-setting oil spill. The report pointed to defective cement used to construct the well, faulting mostly BP, but also rig operator Transocean and contractor Halliburton. [17][18]. A White House commission had earlier found fault with BP and its partners for a series of cost-cutting decisions and an inadequate safety system. The report stated that "the spill resulted from systemic root causes and absent significant reform in both industry practices and government policies, might well recur." [19]

In Nov 2012, BP pled guilty to 11 counts of manslaughter, two misdemeanors, and a felony count of lying to Congress. BP agreed to four years of government monitoring of its safety practices and ethics, and the EPA announced that BP would be temporarily banned from new contracts with the US government. BP and the Department of Justice agreed to a record-setting $4.525 billion in fines and other payments.[20][21][22] Legal proceedings continue to determine additional fines and payouts under the Clean Water Act and the Natural Resources Damage Assessment.[23][24] As of Feb 2013, criminal and civil settlements and payments have cost the company $42.2 Billion. [25]

Martin Hogbin
This version is based on the lead from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill article. Refs will obviously be fixed.

The April 20, 2010 explosion in the Gulf of Mexico on the Macondo Prospect was followed by a sea-floor oil gusher which flowed for 87 days. The incident claimed 11 lives, and the total discharge was estimated at 4.9 Moilbbl. . It was largest accidental marine oil spill in history. The well was declared sealed on 19 September 2010. A massive response ensued to protect the marine and coastal environment from the spreading oil utilizing skimmer ships, floating booms, controlled burns and 1.84 e6USgal of Corexit oil dispersant. Due to the spill, and adverse effects from the response and cleanup activities, extensive damage to marine and wildlife habitats, fishing and tourism industries, and human health problems have continued through 2013.

Numerous investigations explored the causes of the explosion, notably, the U.S. government's September 2011 report pointed to defective cement on the well, faulting mostly BP, but also rig operator Transocean and contractor Halliburton.

In November 2012, BP and the United States Department of Justice settled federal criminal charges with BP pleading guilty to 11 counts of manslaughter, two misdemeanors, and a felony count of lying to Congress. BP also agreed to four years of government monitoring of its safety practices and ethics, and the Environmental Protection Agency announced that BP would be temporarily banned from new contracts with the US government. BP and the Department of Justice agreed to $4.525 billion in fines and other payments   but further legal proceedings not are expected to conclude until 2014. As of February 2013, criminal and civil settlements and payments to a trust fund had cost the company $42.2 billion.

SlimVirgin
The Deepwater Horizon oil spill began on 20 April 2010 when the Deepwater Horizon, a drilling rig owned by Transocean and leased by BP to drill an exploratory well, exploded 48 mi off the coast of Louisiana in the United States, killing 11 workers. Between then and 15 July, around 4.1 million barrels of oil (170 million US gallons) spilled from a depth of 5,000 ft (1,500 m) into the Gulf of Mexico, making it the world's largest accidental marine oil spill. Around 180 miles of shoreline were "heavily to moderately oiled," according to a US government report. There were further safety concerns about the 1.84 million US gallons of Corexit 9527 and 9500, the oil dispersant BP used during the cleanup, over a third of it applied at depth; it was the largest known application of such dispersants to date. "The use of surface and subsea dispersants during the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill", National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling, 6 October 2010: "The use of dispersants in the aftermath of the Macondo deepwater well explosion was controversial for three reasons. First, the total amount of dispersants used was unprecedented: 1.84 million gallons. Second, 771,000 of those gallons were applied at the wellhead, located 5,067 feet below the surface. Little or no prior testing had been done on the effectiveness and potential adverse environmental consequences of subsea dispersant use, let alone at those volumes. Third, the existing federal regulatory system pre-authorized dispersant use of Mexico without any limits or guidelines as to amount or duration."
 * Elizabeth B. Kujawinski et al, "Fate of Dispersants Associated with the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill", Environmental Science and Technology, 45 (4), 2011, pp. 1298–1306: "Response actions to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill included the injection of 771,000 gallons (2,900,000 L) of chemical dispersant into the flow of oil near the seafloor. Prior to this incident, no deepwater applications of dispersant had been conducted, and thus no data exist on the environmental fate of dispersants in deepwater."
 * J. Wise and J.P. Wise Sr., "A review of the toxicity of chemical dispersants", Reviews on Environmental Health, 26(4), 2011, pp. 281–300: "Chemical dispersants used for the cleanup and containment of crude oil toxicity became a major concern after the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil crisis in the Gulf of Mexico. During the crisis, millions of liters of chemical dispersants (Corexit 9527 and 9500) were used – the largest known application of dispersants in the field."
 * Melissa Gaskill, "How Much Damage Did the Deepwater Horizon Spill Do to the Gulf of Mexico?", Nature, 19 April 2011: "BP added around 9 million litres of chemical dispersants to the oil, roughly a third of it at depth."
 * Mark Hertsgaard, "What BP Doesn't Want You to Know About the 2010 Gulf Spill", Newsweek, 22 April 2010.

The environmental impact may not be known for decades. Around 7,000 dead animals were collected, including birds, sea turtles and dolphins; scientists say that only a small percentage of carcasses wash ashore and that the number of dead animals is significantly higher. The human health cost will likewise take years to evaluate. There are anecdotal reports of ill effects, including flu-like symptoms. The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences set up the ongoing GuLF Study in June 2010 to investigate; the study aims to collect blood, urine, toenail, hair and domestic dust samples from 20,000 clean-up workers. The Deepwater Horizon Study Group, an international team of 64 experts, attributed the spill to BP's safety culture; the group said safety had been compromised by poor decision-making and management. In November 2012 BP pleaded guilty in the US to 11 counts of manslaughter, two misdemeanors, and a felony count of lying to Congress about the size of the spill. The company agreed to pay $4 billion in fines and other penalties. It estimated that settlements and other expenses would cost it $42 billion in total, including $14 billion for the clean-up, $11 billion in compensation, and $500 million to support research in the area until 2020.

Survey

 * Martin Hogbin's version Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:27, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * SlimVirgin's version ```<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  19:16, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * SlimVirgin's version Robert McClenon (talk) 19:19, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * None of the above. The current version is fine, and the three alternatives are not good condensations. They fail to give adequate weight to the so-called Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill. I disagree with us having to choose from three versions. What's the hurry? Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 19:43, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * None of the above. The current version needs only a bit of tightening to be an excellent summary. If the bold subsections were scrapped, the content could fit into a nice 4-5 paragraph section. The legal sections could be trimmed to one paragraph easily. We might choose to blend some of Slim's work into the final summary, though, as it is excellent.  petrarchan47  t  c   20:55, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * None of the above Considering that there actually was not strong support for only two paras, six (including Martin who did not specify) with two of them saying "2 or three" and "2 or so" and five not willing to place a limit on the additional space needed for health and environmental aspects, I am not willing to support any of the suggestions.  In good conscience I just can not sign my name to a decision that would give the DWH spill roughly half the space allowed for the Prudhoe Bay spill.  I recently re-read the study group's final report  and the WP consensus guidelines and I'd prefer to drop out rather than feel that I did not do my best to see that the spill was reported with the seriousness that it deserves. Gandydancer (talk) 22:08, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That is a good point about how the votes were tallied, Gandy. I've left notes for the closing admin, and maybe your comments would be a good addition here.  petrarchan47  t  c   22:59, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I support adding the summary I wrote as a first draft to be improved in situ, so long as it isn't extended too much. It is a compromise between the current long section and the one-paragraph version that was replaced in April, and (it is hoped) will put an end to the dispute about this part of the article. The complaint that it would make this subsection shorter than the Prudhoe Bay oil spill section, or the Texas Refinery one, is to make those shorter too, because both have dedicated articles, and the current main article is around 11,700 words long. (I also think the long history section should be moved to its own article and summarized here.) I suspect that a lot of readers who click on BP do so to get to other articles, probably mainly Deepwater Horizon oil spill; they click on BP because they've forgotten the name of the spill, or can't be bothered to type it out. The spill article got 87,216 hits last month, and was ranked 3,098 on WP in terms of traffic. This is more hits than BP, which got 72,138 and was ranked 6,804. This suggests to me that people who want a detailed summary of the spill will click ahead, rather than stopping to read the detail in the sub-section here. The readers who don't click ahead are more likely to want the broad brushstrokes. The draft I produced gives the basic facts, is based on good sources (it includes news sources without relying heavily on them), and the two sentences about human health are MEDRS-compliant. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:50, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It might be a mistake to take into consideration that Beagle once put up a one-paragraph DHW summary. No one else supported it, ever. I've left comments at your talk page about the assumption that DHW page hits means that people are happy to go there to get their information rather than to have a good, fact-filled summary here.  petrarchan47  t  c   22:59, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * What you are talking about? Beagel (talk) 06:20, 8 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Martin Hogbin's version as the first preference but all three versions are acceptable. More detailed explanation of my position:
 * All three proposed version are acceptable as starting point.
 * The current text in the article is not an option per previous RfD and WP:UNDUE.
 * All three proposed drafts needs some addition and/or factual correction, so the support is given to the drafts as a starting points, not as a final text. (changes to SlimVirgin's draft are discussed here)
 * Per Jytdog, I am strongly in position that information should be provided in the article which is the main article about the event, that means in the case of DWH this is Deepwater Horizon oil spill and its spin-off articles. To avoid confusion and WP:POVFORK, the summary here should be lead of the Deewater Horizon oil spill article, trimmed to two paragraphs per results of the previous RfC.
 * Based on this, my first preference is Martin's text, my second preference is Buster's text, my third preference is SlimVirgin's text. But as I said, I am ready to support any of these drafts versus the current text.
 * Restoration of the 14 April version per SlimVirgin makes sense and it may be also a starting point if trimmed, inter alia the Clean Water Act trial subsection is trimmed to one paragraph, and the separate subsections are direct quotes are removed.

Beagel (talk) 06:30, 8 July 2013 (UTC), supplemented Beagel (talk) 12:14, 12 July 2013 (UTC)


 * None of the Above - Agree with User:Petrarchan47. These proposals need tightening. If you look at the RfC that concluded on July 3rd, most respondents suggested this thing should be covered in 4-6 lines. NickCT (talk) 13:36, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Clarification - As a couple folks noticed and pointed out, my original opinion didn't make sense (largely b/c I misread Petrarchan47's comment). Let me try again. Two points - 1) I do not dislike any of the proposed versions, but I feel they are too long. I do not feel the proposed versions, as currently written, comply with the sentiment from myself and multiple others in the July 3rd RfC that the section should be 4-6 lines. If the proposed versions were tightened/shortened they'd probably deserve consideration; however, as they are currently written I support none of the above. 2) I completely agree with Petra's sentiment that "The current version needs only a bit of tightening to be an excellent summary.". Further more I agree with her sentiment that the "bold subsections [should be] scrapped,". Hope my position is now clear. Apologies for the confusion. NickCT (talk) 23:11, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I was referring to the version on the page.  petrarchan47  t  c   02:17, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Nick, I am going to have to ask that your suggestions are thrown out, based on the guidelines which state, Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but neither is it determined by the closer's own views about what is the most appropriate policy. The closer is there to judge the consensus of the community, after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, those that show no understanding of the matter of issue.
 * From an earlier RfC, you revealed that you do not have a basic understanding of this spill in terms of impact on BP or the environment, nor a basic understanding of the scale of it. You compared the Exxon valdez to this one, saying The two spills are quite comparable. True the BP spill involved about ten times as much oil, but oil dumped in the middle of the gulf is significantly less meaningful than oil dumped off the coast of Alaska. In total the economic impact of Valdez was probably over half of the impact Deepwater created. In terms of the company's stock value, give it 30 years and I'm pretty sure BP will be sitting as pretty as ExxonMobile is. ;-) NickCT (talk) 01:59, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * In actuality, "BP released one Exxon Valdez–sized oil spill every three to four days for the eighty-seven days it took to cap the well" The Nation  petrarchan47  t  c   04:10, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * When I gave you the facts about how much oil made it to the shorelines of 4 states, and continues to, you said Mate, if you think me dumping 100 barrels of oil in the middle the Atlantic is going to be as environmentally harmful as me going to your local protected nature reserve and dumping it there, you've got to check your perspecitive on reality. NickCT (talk) 14:52, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It does follow that with this ideology, your iVotes would be outliers in the field, and indeed you are one pulling for as little mention as possible.  petrarchan47  t  c   02:39, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Ouch. That's probably probably the sternest rebuke I've got from someone I was trying to agree with. Look, I maintain that in terms of total economic impact, Valdez and DWH were comparable spills, though I completely accept your assertion that in terms of total volume of oil spilled DWH was significantly worse. As I'd pointed out, there a large number of variables which effect a spill's economic impact beyond simple quantity of oil spilled. Anyways, it probably won't help for us to hurl facts surrounding the spill at each other. The bottom line is that folks smarter about oil spills than you or I, have done the Valdez/DWH comparison and come to the conclusion I've stated.
 * re "indeed you are one pulling for as little mention as possible" - Well thanks for assuming good faith. I am "pulling" for two things. 1) I'm am pulling to avoid WP:RECENTISM, which I think is a large part of why the section is currently so large & 2) I'm pulling to come into compliance with Article size. Is my main concern that this section be short? You're darn right it is. Am I trying to "coverup"/avoid discussion of DWH. No. DWH absolutely has to be mentioned and emphasized. It's an important and notable part of BP's history. I just think we can mention and emphasize it efficiently in 4-6 lines. Again, if you review the earlier RfC on article length, you'll note that my sentiment on length did not vary significantly from what others were calling for. NickCT (talk) 13:43, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You have not agreed with me, my statements referred to the text in the article, not the drafts. And I am not rebuking you, this was a note regarding policy and is really meant for consideration by the closing admin.  petrarchan47  t  c   18:49, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Did you read above -
 * I completely agree with Petra's sentiment that "The current version needs only a bit of tightening to be an excellent summary.".
 * How can you read that and go onto say "You have not agreed with me". NickCT (talk) 03:37, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It is getting a bit confusing, in one sentence you are commenting on the drafts (too long), and the next you agree with me. But I was not referring to any of the drafts, I was talking about the 8 paragraph section in the article. I figured you thought I was talking about the drafts? Anyway, Nick, none of my comments are personal. But your misinformation and lack of information about the subject at hand does disqualify your many contributions to these RfCs, unless I'm reading the guidelines wrong.  petrarchan47  t  c   04:05, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok. Let me try to state this again. I think there are two possible solutions here - 1) We try to rework the drafts to make them shorter. Then reconsider them. Or 2) We just do what you suggested (i.e. shorten the current text).
 * My very initial RfC response was actually based on a misreading of what you were saying (which might be the basis for the confusion). But my next comment tried to clarify.
 * Regardless, you do appear to be misreading the policy, because none of the rationales for discarding seem to apply to me.
 * You also seem to have ignored the ideas and principles behind WP:Article Size and WP:Recentism that I've pointed to. NickCT (talk) 12:13, 11 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The closer is there to judge the consensus of the community, after discarding irrelevant arguments, those that show no understanding of the matter of issue. This is a matter for the closing admin, not for us. I have alerted him to this conversation. I expect he is brushing up on the oil spill facts as we speak and reviewing the comments for bogus arguments which should be thrown out. You didn't know the most basic facts about the topic, and even after I showed you the scale (one ExxonValdez every 2-3 days for 83 days), you still called it "ten times the size of Valdez". According to NWF, the ExxonValdez spilled 10.8 million gallons, and BP spilled 172 million. Amazingly, you believed the oil stayed out at sea and didn't affect coastlines or protected habitats. You thought the oil spilled at sea was relatively harmless, showing you aren't aware of the Corexit application to that oil, making it 52 times more toxic. Dolphins to this day are dying at 6 times the pre-spill rate. You mentioned that scientists 'smarter than you and I' have compared the Valdez and BP spills, finding them similar, but did not provide a requested source (I doubt one exists, but you surely must have seen one?). When I informed you the spill has hurt BP by making them 1/3 smaller company, you lightheartedly said "give them 30 years" - but we are here to determine the scale of this in 2013. You apparently have a preconceived notion about the spill and how it should be covered, and is isn't guided by actual DWH spill facts nor is it swayed by them. I was astounded by the result of these RfCs, and figured something went awry. Your prolific contribs to these DWH discussions have most assuredly contributed to the rfc result, a 2 paragraph limitation which makes no sense when the true scale of the spill is considered. (This doesn't mean you aren't a great guy!!)  petrarchan47  t  c   18:45, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * re "even after I showed you the scale (one ExxonValdez every 2-3 days for 83 days), you still called it "ten times the size of Valdez". According to NWF, the ExxonValdez spilled 10.8 million gallons, and BP spilled 172 million." - Wait wait wait. Your numbers put the spill at 15.9 times bigger. You are going to tell me that my saying the spill was 10 times bigger, when (according to one set of numbers) it was 15.9 times bigger means that I have "no understanding of the matter of issue"? Ever heard of approximation?
 * re " Amazingly, you believed .... Dolphins to this day are dying at 6 times the pre-spill rate." - The great majority of oil didn't reach the coastline. That is true. Some of course did. When I said "relatively harmless" I repeatidly stated I was talking in terms of economic impact. Obviously it's very sad that a dolphin dies, but I'm not sure how consequential that is in terms of financial loss.
 * re "You mentioned that scientists 'smarter than you and I' ... but did not provide a requested source" - You didn't ask for a source. How about Berkley Labs, a Enviro Sci Tech Aritcle, a NOAA presentation comparing the spills, HowStuff works (not really the best RS, but by a Enviro Sci Grad who explicitly says Valdez was worse),a Time Magazine Aritcle. Shall I go on?
 * re " but we are here to determine the scale of this in 2013. " - That's exactly contrary to what WP:RECENTISM says.
 * re "Your prolific contribs to these DWH discussions ... contributed to the rfc result" - Ummmm... Not just me contributing "prolificly". Look at Slim. She's commenting all the time. Is she causing the astounding results?
 * re " a 2 paragraph limitation which makes no sense when the true scale of the spill is considered" - Well, I maintain that DWH and Valdez are comparable in scale. Obviously this is a "OSE" argument", but I think the DWH should look something like ExxonMobil. Please remember that the article is currently too long. If you want a longer DWH section, you should probably point to other parts of the article you think can be trimmed.
 * re "This doesn't mean you aren't a great guy!!" - None of this means you aren't a great gal either. This is probably a good topic for one to get passionate about. But we should be cautious not to let passion infringe on WP:NPOV. NickCT (talk) 17:28, 12 July 2013 (UTC)


 * None of the Above This is something of a Hobson's choice. Let's take a breath and start over. On the merits, I agree with Petrarchan47 who said, contrary to the misinterpetation immediately above, that the current version only needs to be tightened. Coretheapple (talk) 13:55, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * re "contrary to the misinterpetation immediately above" - Man.... You are actually reading peoples' arguments? Anyways, I don't really care whether we tighten and adopt one of the new versions or "tighten" the current. Whatever we have, it's just got to be tighter. NickCT (talk) 14:22, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * She favors tightening the current version. If you agree with that, I'd be happy to strike out "misinterpreted." Coretheapple (talk) 14:48, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * No. You don't need to strike. You were right. I did misread. But regardless, having reread, I still think what she's suggesting is OK. But I'm also not against tightening one of the proposed revisions and using the product to replace the current text. NickCT (talk) 15:48, 9 July 2013 (UTC)


 * SlimVirgin's version If we already have a consensus that 4-6 lines should be dedicated to this, then a small tightening of the present version doesn't seem possible. Of the three drafts, SlinVirgin's version is clearest. Of course, there is the dedicated article which is the primary representation of this incident on the project and we're only discussing the summary section. As a sidenote, the DH incident is covered in the lead of this article in excessive detail, in my opinion ("11 counts of felony manslaughter"). --Dailycare (talk) 19:26, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * None of the above. The suggested versions are too short or otherwise unsatisfactory. Deepwater Horizon was a major landmark event and should not be given less attention than other spills/explosions. Binksternet (talk) 14:46, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: I'm not sure I'd use other similar sections as a guidepost, like Prudhoe Bay, as they are next on the chopping block.  petrarchan47  t  c   19:04, 10 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Martin's version I agree entirely with SlimVirgin's reasoning and (importantly) evidence above, that people don't come to the BP article to read about the DWH spill - they go to the DWH article.  When sections grow into full length articles and are forked off, I strongly favor leaving a stub in the main article, strictly based on the lede of the forked article (copy/pasted, even, with refs added where lacking) along with a "see X" hat. If the lede of the forked article changes, the stub in the main article should change. That way readers are not yanked all over and Wikipedia doesn't develop thickets of conflicting-at-worst, and differing-at-best, content in different places.  Martin's version is based on the lede of the DWH article. (I would actually favor just copy/pasting the lede of the DWH article here.  I note that the lede of the DWH article doesn't reflect its environmental section very well!)  I did not vote for SlimVirgin's because it is not based off the lede of the DWH article; and because there is detail in it, that is not even in the DWH article (~7000 dead animals and 700 dead dolphins), and I don't think those raw numbers are helpful. (Does 700 =  80% or 2% of the dolphin population?)  In any case, I hope my arguments here make sense, even if folks don't agree with them. Stubs for forks should be copies of the fork's lede, so that wikipedia doesn't grow disorganized and unhelpful to readers.  The thing to fight over, is the content and lede of the DWH article.  Wuick additional note - I am fine with copy/pasting a lede and editing it down to fit the main article's context and needs.  In this case the series of RfCs have called for something shorter than the 4 paragraphs in the DWH lede, so it should be edited down to fit the RfCs.  But there should be nothing here that is not in the DWH article. Jytdog (talk) 23:51, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * SlimVirgin's version. Our articles on disasters don't say that, for example, a certain percentage of NYC residents were killed in the 9/11 attacks, and I think the absolute numbers are meaningful in a way at percentages would not be. And what would the region area or volume be from which to take a percentage? EllenCT (talk) 14:11, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Martin's version is the best of the three, though even that one could be more balanced. Slim's version is simply unacceptable, reading like it was ripped from a Greenpeace pamphlet. I don't think, however, that we need to go with simply having the DWH article lede here as this article is about the company. Casting details in a more relevant light would be desirable.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 07:26, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Martin's version is by far the best of the three. Buster's version is far too narrow (it's just about assigning blame). Slim's version has a lot of good content in it (which should be viewed as possible additions), but also a lot of vague content-free advocacy-group type sentences.    On another note, the posed question is ambiguous because it doesn't say exactly what would get deleted / replaced, so I was unable to compare Martin's to the current version of what would get replaced. (I was asked to comment by the bot)  North8000 (talk) 14:13, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * None of them I was randomly recruited by RFCbot. I would recommend first finding consensus on an outline or if that's too hard, simply listing the most important, basic points to include in a summary. Then the discussion is not clouded by word choices or style issues and it will be much clearer how many lines will be required to cover the material.. Joja  lozzo  03:26, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Threaded discussion
It's worth noting that the point of these RfCs is to gain a rolling consensus for a variety of issues, so that progress is made.

Therefore, if RfC (1) results in consensus X, RfC (2) asks: "given consensus X, what do you prefer of the following?" Responding outside that framework – e.g. "but I didn't agree to consensus X" – just means that the dispute goes back and forth with no way forward. It also runs the risk that the closing editor will overlook that kind of response, or won't know how to evaluate it. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:39, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Slim. I have added 'Keep current version' as an option. Otherwise, if this RfC resulted in no clear consensus that could be taken as a consensus for the current version. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:49, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The previous RfC went against that, so we already have no consensus for the current version. Please don't add anything that's inconsistent with that, otherwise there will have been no point in holding RfC (2). SlimVirgin (talk) 16:52, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * What about the April 1st version which was also proposed? ```<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  16:55, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


 * See my reply to you in the previous section. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I've added the current version as an option, although it defeats the purpose of having held RfC (2). I was going to add an old version for comparison's sake, but looking around there are several. This was a better one, but it's longish. So I propose just leaving the RfC with these four options. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:15, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

'Martin Hogbin's version' is not actually my version at all but a shortened version of the lead of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:44, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It's the version you proposed. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:49, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course it is but it was not my wording but an attempt at generating a neutral version by using material that I had no influence over. I think responders should be made aware of its origin, therefore there should be a note somewhere indicating this. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:34, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) Martin, I apologize for responding to your comment and for moving it here. I didn't realize it was your survey response. I thought you were just pointing out where it had come from, and had posted it in the wrong place. Sorry about that. Please feel free to move it back, if you want to, with or without my reply as you see fit. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:37, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I have a serious concern as to whether the BP Oil Spill can be compressed into two paragraphs without giving the subject lack of proper weight. Whatever local consensus may say on the subject, it does not override core policies such as WP:NPOV. I realize that this is a subjective issue, but feel I had to throw that out for discussion. That is the central issue here. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 21:44, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Is it entirely subjective? I don't see it that way. We can look to some facts about the impact this spill has had on the company, size and stock-wise, as well as its impact on the environment, and the amount of "first ever" and "largest ever" fines, amount spilled, chemicals used, etc. for a more objective take, no?  petrarchan47  t  c   22:01, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


 * It would seem. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 23:20, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

14 days
I was just wondering by what authority an editor, initiating an RfC, has the right to arbitrarily set its duration at 14 days. This is now the second RfC in which the initiator has decided it is to be 14 days. This is the middle of the summer in the northern hemisphere,and in the US we just had the July 4 holidays. A lot of us are away. Since the results of these RfCs seem to be binding, permanent and draconian, I don't think it's right to shortcircuit the process. The RfC page says "The default duration of an RfC is 30 days, because the RFC bot automatically delists RfCs after this time. Editors may choose to end them earlier or extend them longer. Deciding how long to leave an RfC open depends on how much interest there is in the issue and whether editors are continuing to comment." I'm a little behind the times, so my apologies if this has already been addressed. Coretheapple (talk) 13:39, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I've also asked Nathan to reopen the previous RfC. It may not change the outcome, but at least it will not leave people with the feeling that things have been rushed. Some of the people involved have worked on this article for a long time, and have had many head-butts with a BP employee who is treated as a kind of prince by a lot of editors. It has left them feeling bitter and I don't blame them. Let's not add to that. Coretheapple (talk) 14:19, 9 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, besides the confusion re the length of the new section, despite overwhelming support for inclusion of the environmental/health aspects, after only a few days of discussion it is really not at all acceptable to expect an editor to vote on one of three drafts, one with no e/h information, one with one sentence and one with four. Gandydancer (talk) 14:55, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * This looks like tactical manoeuvring to avoid removing the anti-BP environmental soapbox version that has never had consensus. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:34, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * @ Editor Martin. Tactical maneuvering? Anti-BP? Environmental soapbox? All in one sentence? I thought we were moving toward becoming collaborators. Jargon like that doesn't help. From the first thread at WP:Consensus:Editors usually reach consensus as a natural product of editing. After someone makes a change or addition to a page, others who read it can choose either to leave the page as it is or to change it. When editors do not reach agreement by editing, discussion on the associated talk pages continues the process toward consensus. So...the way I read that is contrary to your claim that it "Never had consensus". I know that it doesn't have consensus now and that we editors are working toward achieving consensus but there were moments, maybe not long moments, but moments nonetheless, when there was consensus. ```<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  21:40, 9 July 2013 (UTC)


 * @Buster. The non-constructive behaviour and non-readiness to accept the results of the previous RfC by some editors is hardly "moving toward becoming collaborators." Beagel (talk) 04:27, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * @ Beagel. And I think you are wrong as evidenced by the thread below. It looks like collaboration to me. But then, I'm an optimist. ```<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  04:19, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Pre-dispute version

 * Because there's an objection, I've removed that the RfC will end after 14 days. I've also suggested here that, in the meantime, it might be a good idea to revert to the three-paragraph version of the DWH section from 14 April, or thereabouts, as that seems to have been a better length. That would be closer to consensus than the current version. The 14 April Clean Water Act trial section – which is part of the DWH spill aftermath – could be reduced to one paragraph, and added to that section too.


 * If that's not done, it means the current eight-paragraph section will be there for an additional 14 days, which is problematic given the opposition to it. As a gesture of goodwill until the RfC has closed, reverting to an earlier version – or at least reducing the length of the current version – would be a step in the right direction. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:44, 9 July 2013 (UTC)


 * SlimVirgin. The current RfC is about the clarification of the results of the previous RfCs. We already have had a full time RfC and one 14-days RfC about this issue. In these conditions, the 30-days RfC serves only purpose to keep the current text in the article as long as possible, particularly taking account that the 14-days term was opposed by the editor who inserted the current version back in April. However, I strongly support you that the 14 April version (if the Clean Water Act trial subsection is trimmed to one paragraph and the separate subsection is removed). I kindly ask you make it as it probably will be immediately reverted if done by some other editor who have been involved in these disputes for a long time. Beagel (talk) 04:43, 10 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I too would agree with that. It was a long-standing and stable version. We could then drop the RfC and discuss what, if anything should be added. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:53, 10 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, I'd be reluctant to do it myself, because I'm unfamiliar with this and have no science background, so writing about it and checking sources is a struggle for me. But Beagel and Martin (or anyone else), if you already know that the sources in the 14 April version are solid, or you have a background that allows you to check them quickly, it would make sense for you to restore that version (or a nearby version of similar length). I'd be surprised if anyone were to revert at this point. Arguably, a little more could be said about the environmental and health consequences, but hopefully that could be dealt with via normal editing, and without making the section much longer. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:01, 10 July 2013 (UTC)


 * This change requires more that Beagle and Martin's approval, in my opinion. But I'm not sure everyone is aware their opinion is being asked. They are focused on the RfC.  petrarchan47  t  c   18:44, 10 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Looking at the history: there was some slight expansion of the DWH section shortly after 14 April, but the main expansion happened here on 29 April. That expansion was reverted by Rangoon here, and that's where things would normally have stopped, per WP:BRD. However, Rangoon often engaged in wholesale reverting if there was any part of an edit he didn't like, and that tended to create a dynamic in which his reverts were challenged (even although, strictly speaking, he was right that new material should be removed if there are objections). Perhaps for that reason, BRD didn't hold, and first Core and then Petra reverted to the expanded version.


 * There was later reverting (back to the pre-29 April version) by Shii, rv by Figureofnine, and again by Robert McClenon, rv by Figureofnine; the last revert to the post-29 April expanded version was on 10 May. Robert McClenon started the first RfC on that section on 9 May, and the other two RfCs have followed on from that one. All or most of the changes that were made on 29 April are still in place.


 * Based on this, it seems reasonable to revert to the pre-dispute version. That would either be the version from on or around 14 April, before the slight expansion began, or from 29 April before the significant expansion took place. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:55, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * If anything, at least go back to a pre-Jtydog version. You are arguing to give much more honor to his drive-by edits than is justified, petrarchan47  t  c  20:07, 10 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I do not appreciate this description of my work here. I put a lot of time into this article until it became too unpleasant to work here, and seeing this reminds me of why I left.  I had hoped things had become less ugly by now.Jytdog (talk) 22:31, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no reason to hope my opinion has changed. The work is rated by its quality, not the time spent. Drive-by is a reference to your history here, though I realize it normally refers to a very short period of time. I think the massive cuts you made to the environmental section is what started the very heated debate that continues to this day. Prior to those cuts, though no agreement existed, no one was too bothered by the section, and it wasn't a topic of much debate at that point. Certainly no RfCs had been proposed. we've since had three. Would you be willing to show a diff so I can see your version compared with how it looked before your arrival? I'm not able to do that much searching atm, but I'd like to see the diff and make sure I'm remembering things correctly.  petrarchan47  t  c   01:01, 11 July 2013 (UTC)


 * You are entitled to your opinion (which I have no hopes about one way or the other) but your behavior remains too rude for me; this is what I hoped had changed.   SlimVirgin invited me to give comments, which I honored, and I am once again outta here.  I have better ways to spend my wikipedia time. Jytdog (talk) 01:39, 11 July 2013 (UTC)


 * No, it can't be argued this would be an improvement. One para about the spill and three about court cases. Why don't we just breathe and realize, as others have said, there is no rush.  petrarchan47  t  c   20:15, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It makes sense that if there was an easy solution, an acceptable past version to which we could default, we would've thought of this already. There is no answer but to do the work required.  petrarchan47  t  c   21:04, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Slimvirgin, there is really no such thing as a "pre-dispute" version, as there have been continual disputes over a period of years. What you're suggesting is reversion to a contentious version. Coretheapple (talk) 21:31, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It's worth considering this earlier look at different versions of the DWH section done by editors who normally work on this article. Perhaps this past discussion and links should be reprinted here for easier access?  petrarchan47  t  c   21:46, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

(ec) Core, the problem is that your edit of 29 April added around 400 words to a section about a contentious issue. Following the revert of that edit, a discussion should have taken place to gain consensus for the expansion. That didn't happen because the dynamic on the page was that the DWH spill had been unduly minimized in the past (at one point, not even mentioned in the lead), and at least one editor (perhaps more) was reverting for no good reason. So when people did revert for a legitimate reason, those reverts were undone several times. I understand that it happened out of frustration with prior events, so please don't take it as a criticism.

So now we have a situation where an expansion that failed to gain consensus has been in place since 29 April, despite two RfCs saying the section is too long. With the recent request that the 3rd RfC last 30 days, it means it will remain in place until at least 7 August. That's why I'm suggesting that we revert to a pre-29 April version until the RfC has concluded; you could, for example, revert your own 29 April edit. Doing that might even be enough to make the RfC moot. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:53, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Didn't Jtydog's reductions precede Core's edits? Also, please consider the December discussion which shed an important light on the edit warring over this section. It most certainly did not begin in April.  petrarchan47  t  c   22:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

For what it is worth, I like SlimVirgin's recommendation about going back to the 14 April version; the only change that would really need to be made, is that the 2nd paragraph in that version should be deleted, as it is a partial and out-of-context discussion of the civil proceedings discussed again in the Clean Water Act section of the April 14 version. (here is the detail: The 31 August 2012 filings by DoJ that are mentioned in the 2nd paragraph of the April 14 version, were just a procedural step in the civil proceedings, which actually began on December 15, 2010, as the current version states.  Prior editors had not understood that the 2nd paragraph and the Clean Water Act proceedings were the same thing.  I consolidated them at some point, I don't remember when exactly - that consolidation became what is the "civil proceedings" section of the current article.) I think the current version of the "civil proceedings" section is accurate and complete (unlike the April 14 version of the Clean Water Act trial) and we should use it, appended to the April 14 version, with some editing for fat as follows: "On December 15, 2010, The US Department of Justice filed a civil and criminal suit against BP and other defendants for violations under the Clean Water Act in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.[405][406]:70 The case was consolidated with about 200 others, including those brought by state governments, individuals, and companies under Multi-District Litigation docket MDL No. 2179, before U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier. [407][408] Judge Barbier is trying the case without a jury, as is normal in United States admiralty law.[409][410] The Justice Department contends that BP committed gross negligence and willful misconduct, which BP contests, and is seeking the stiffest penalties possible.[411] A ruling of gross negligence would result in a four-fold increase in Clean Water Act penalties, which would cause the penalties to reach approximately $17.6 billion, and would increase damages in the other suits as well.[26][27][28] Any fines from gross negligence would hit BP's bottom line very hard, because they would not be tax-deductible.[412] The company paid no federal income tax to the U.S. government in 2010 because of deductions related to the spill.[413] The consolidated trial's first phase began on February 25, 2013, to determine the liability of BP, Transocean, Halliburton, and other companies, and to determine whether the companies acted with gross negligence and willful misconduct.[414][415] [25] The second phase, scheduled in September 2013, will focus on the amount of oil spilled into the gulf and who was responsible for stopping it. The third phase will focus on all other liability that occurred in the process of oil spill cleanup and containment issues, including the use of dispersants.[416][417] Test jury trials will follow to determine actual damage amounts.[409]" There you go. Jytdog (talk) 22:12, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * should have said, the current "civil proceedings" section should be edited and re-arranged as follows.

On December 15, 2010, The US Department of Justice filed a civil and criminal suit against BP and other defendants for violations under the Clean Water Act in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.[405][406]:70 The case was consolidated with about 200 others, including those brought by state governments, individuals, and companies.[407][408] The consolidated trial's first phase began on February 25, 2013, to determine the liability of BP, Transocean, Halliburton, and other companies, and to determine whether the companies acted with gross negligence and willful misconduct.[414][415] [25] The second phase, scheduled in September 2013, will focus on the amount of oil spilled into the gulf and who was responsible for stopping it. The third phase will focus on all other liability that occurred in the process of oil spill cleanup and containment issues, including the use of dispersants.[416][417] Test jury trials will follow to determine actual damage amounts.[409] A ruling of gross negligence against BP would result in a four-fold increase in Clean Water Act penalties, which would cause the penalties to reach approximately $17.6 billion, and would increase damages in the other suits as well.[26][27][28] (I removed the things I marked for deletion, and moved the statement about financial impact to the end, after the description of the trial phases)Jytdog (talk) 22:16, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * For anyone who is looking for the last undisputed version of the section, I will point you to 25 May 2012 which looked like the following (with images and references removed). I recommend this version be considered the last 'good' version, to be minimally updated with more recent information. Binksternet (talk) 22:23, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I was about to say that User:Jytdog's version is a total nonstarter, as it contains not a word about the environmental and health effects and was heatedly disputed. Also I believe that SlimVirgin was proposing reverting back to April 29,not 14. I haven't looked at the proposal immediately above and will do so. Coretheapple (talk) 22:27, 10 July 2013 (UTC) Binksternet, I think that version is worth considering as a starting-off point, if it can be updated to reflect the litigation etc. now underway. It is well written and has facts not contained currently (in the version I wrote). Coretheapple (talk) 22:30, 10 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Nope, it was the April 14 version. Jytdog (talk) 22:36, 10 July 2013 (UTC)


 * OK, whatever. It is still by no way, shape or form a "pre-dispute" version. It was deeply disputed, and is primarily a sum-up of litigation. We went well beyond that. I honestly do not understand the zeal to "turn the clock back" in general, by arbitrarily picking old versions and calling them "pre-dispute." To quote Churchill, "let us go forward together," not backwards. Coretheapple (talk) 22:41, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It appears there never has been a good version of this section. Lets write one!  petrarchan47  t  c   22:46, 10 July 2013 (UTC)


 * agreed, Core, on going forward toward consensus! however based on the series of RfCs the way forward is to trim back detail in this article. You are not disagreeing with that, are you?  I can hear you, that the proposal to use the April 14 would lead to content being missing that you would like to see included. Jytdog (talk) 22:50, 10 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, it has to be trimmed, but not in a manner that will result in underweighting of the DWH oil spill, which was the defining event for this company and which is the subject of ongoing news and ongoing litigation that may subject the company to serious consequences. Coretheapple (talk) 23:11, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Arturo's comment
Having been busy elsewhere for a while, I have just caught up on the discussions here and would like to offer a few thoughts. I feel it would be best for me to not vote in this RfC due to my conflict of interest, but I do think that both Martin Hogbin and SlimVirgin put forward decent summaries of the spill and impacts, either would be a reasonable option in my view. With regards to length of the section, I have no preference as to a shorter or longer section, just that in either case the information should reflect all of the available news and scientific coverage.

When SlimVirgin initially presented her draft, she mentioned that BP's perspective might be needed, so if it is not too late to make a suggestion here there are two things I would like to mention: These are just suggestions and I hope that they will be taken into account. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 21:38, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The draft states "settlements and expenses would cost it $42 billion in total." To be clearer about what "settlements and expenses" include, it may help to specify a few figures such as $14 billion spent on cleanup and restoration, $11 billion in compensation paid as of July 2013 and $500 million provided for independent research on the effects of the spill.
 * Also, regarding the figures for dolphin deaths included in the draft, while the spill has been cited as one of the potential causes of the deaths of dolphins in unusually large numbers over the last three years, the deaths began before the spill and scientists are still investigating the root cause. If the number of dolphins should be included, it should make clear that the spill is not considered the sole reason for the their deaths. See the NOAA website on this, which states "the investigation is ongoing and no definitive cause has yet been identified".
 * A brief note of thanks to SlimVirgin for including this information. I appreciate your taking my comments into account. Your revisions look good to me. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 23:10, 16 July 2013 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. I added the BP figures, but I decided just to remove the number of dolphin deaths. It would get too complicated (for this summary) to outline the argument that the increase in deaths was perhaps happening already. I added a quote from the NOAA to the footnote: "The role of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill on stranding rates, diseases, and the death of dolphins during this Unusual Mortality Event remains under investigation." SlimVirgin (talk) 17:28, 17 July 2013 (UTC)